( 2026:JHHC:26582 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7775 of 2026 Rahim Ansari … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mrs. Nirupama, Advocate : Mr. Aashutosh Prasad Deo, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Someshwar Roy, APP : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, APP For the Informant : Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Advocate --- 03/02.09.2026 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 Rajabhitha P.S. Case No. 17 of 2026 for the offences registered under Sections 69,64(2) (m), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. 2023 and section 6 of the POCSO Act, pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge (POCSO), Godda. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The learned counsel has submitted that in the medical report, there is no sexual assault and no internal or external injury was found during the examination of the victim. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even as per the counter affidavit, the victim was major on the alleged date of occurrence and charge sheet has not been submitted under POCSO Act. 5. To this, the learned counsel for the State has submitted that charge sheet has been submitted for the alleged offence under Sections 69, 64(1), 351(2), 352 and other analogous sections of BNS. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has also opposed the prayer for bail. 6. The learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the victim also became pregnant. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of ( 2026:JHHC:26582 ) 2 the BNSS, wherein she has stated that she knew the petitioner from before and they loved each other but the petitioner had forcibly committed rape upon her and when her family members went to the house of the petitioner, they threatened the victim and her family members. 8. Considering the direct allegation against the petitioner and the victim is yet to be examined before the court, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected at this stage. 9. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 02.09.2026 Uploaded on 03.09.2026 Binit/