2026:JHHC:27599 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8052 of 2026 Sandeep Uraon, aged about 28 Years, son of Rupnath Uraon, resident of Village Kalyanpur, Post office & Police Station Piparwar, District-Chatra, (Jharkhand). … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Manish Yadav, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanat Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Informant : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate --- 05/14th September 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Piparwar P.S. Case No. 25/2026 for the offence registered under Section 64/89/351(3)/115(2)/126/61(2)(a) of BNS, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chatra. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 04.06.2026 and the charge-sheet has already been submitted. As per the FIR, the victim was studying in a college at Ranchi from 2021 to 2024, where the petitioner was also studying. It is alleged that from 2023, the petitioner started talking to the victim and on the false pretext of marriage established physical relationship with her, as a result of which, she became pregnant and was thereafter subjected to abortion. Learned counsel submits that about six months after the abortion, the victim went to the house of the petitioner, where she was assaulted, and thereafter the present case was instituted. 3. Learned counsel for the Informant, who also happens to be the victim, has submitted that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that he established physical relationship with the victim on the 2026:JHHC:27599 2 false pretext of marriage and when she became pregnant, she in a deceitful manner aborted the pregnancy. 4. Learned counsel for the State has also opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS has supported the prosecution case. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the direct and specific allegation made against the petitioner, the fact that the victim, in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, has supported the prosecution case that the petitioner established physical relationship with her on the false pretext of marriage, and when she became pregnant, he forcibly got her pregnancy terminated and subsequently refused to marry her and considering the fact that the victim is yet to be examined, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Hence, this bail application is hereby rejected. 6. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 14.09.2026 Uploaded On: 17.09.2026 Mukul/-