2026:JHHC:26465 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7406 of 2026 Rakib Ansari, aged about 25 years son of late Kayum Ansari, resident of village – Solagaria, P.O. Torai Solagaria, P.S. Pakur (T) District - Pakur … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate For the State : Ms. Lily Sahay, APP For the Informant : Md. Yasir Arafat, Advocate --- 04/02.09.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Hiranpur P.S. Case No.25/2026, registered under Sections 351 (2), 68, 333, 352/3(5) of BNS, pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M., Pakur. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the complaint, the petitioner and the victim were having love affair. However, it is alleged that the petitioner forcibly established physical relationship with the victim. The victim refused to marry the petitioner and ultimately, she got married to another person on 07.07.2024, but the petitioner used to trouble her by stating that he will make her video viral. Consequently, under fear, she took divorce from her husband and thereafter the petitioner again refused to marry her. It is further alleged that lastly on the evening of 08.02.2026, the petitioner entered her house and forcibly committed rape upon her, on the point of knife and ultimately refused to marry. When she raised alarm, her mother and neighbour arrived, but the petitioner ran away from the place of occurrence and thereafter abused the mother of the victim and also physically assaulted her. 4. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody since 07.07.2026. The charge-sheet was submitted on 08.07.2026, and 2026:JHHC:26465 2 charges were framed on 21.08.2026; however, no witness has been examined so far. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the ex- husband of the victim has given statement that due to differences and dispute between them, he gave divorce to the wife. 6. The learned counsel for the informant/complainant has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the victim is under constant fear and there are direct allegations against the petitioner, accordingly, the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail at this stage. 7. The learned counsel for the State has also opposed the prayer for bail. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the direct allegations made against the petitioner and the fact that the victim is yet to be examined, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. 9. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected at this stage. 10. The petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after 9 months. 11. The State shall make all endeavour to examine the witnesses including the victim as and when date is fixed by the court . 12. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:02.09.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:03.09.2026