2026:JHHC:26808 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7758 of 2026 Raju Turi, aged about 44 years, son of Maharu Turi @ Mohan Turi, resident of Rajganj, Village Bagdaha, P.O. & P.S. Bagdaha, District Dhanbad … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sinha, Advocate For the Informant : Ms. Sarweshwari Kumari, Advocate --- 05/7th September 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 152 of 2026 corresponding to S.T. Case No. 548 of 2026 for the offence registered under Section 64(1), 64(2)(m) of BNS, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-X, Dhanbad. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 10.05.2026 and has been falsely implicated in this case. The first alleged incident is said to have taken place on 21.04.2026 in a hotel and thereafter, the victim did not lodge any FIR. Another incident is also alleged to have taken place in the same hotel on 24.04.2026. After 24.04.2026, FIR has been lodged on 08.05.2026 and there is enormous delay in lodging the FIR. No material has been collected during investigation with respect to the entry made in the register of the hotel, although the police has visited the place of occurrence. The petitioner is the gharzamai and the informant and her husband are the co-sharer of the ancestral property and there is property dispute between the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the State and the Informant have opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner of committing sexual assault upon the victim. During 2026:JHHC:26808 2 investigation, no material has come that there was property dispute or any dispute between the parties. The victim has supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS. The victim is yet to be examined before the learned court. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, wherein she has fully supported the prosecution case and has also explained each and every aspect of the allegation and the fact that the victim is yet to be examined before the learned court, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Hence, this bail application is hereby rejected. 5. To this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case is at the stage of evidence and charge has already been framed. He submits that some observation be made. 6. Accordingly, the State is directed to ensure prompt production of the witnesses before the learned court. 7. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Director, Prosecution as well as Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance. 8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 07.09.2026 Uploaded On: 08.09.2026 Mukul/-