Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 2705 (JHR)

MUKESH RAM v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

A.B.A./1243/2026 · 2026-04-06

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

( 2026:JHHC:9576 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 1243 of 2026 Mukesh Ram, aged about 30 years, son of Dhaneshwar Ram, resident of village Churchu, P.O. Churchu, P.S. Churchu, District-Hazaribag (Jharkhand) ...... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Victim .…. … Opposite Parties -------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner :Mr. Prakash Kr. Sahay, Advocate Mr. Dhirendra Kr. Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Naveen Kr. Gaunjhu, A.P.P For the Informant : Mr. Jalaj Pati Tiwari, Advocate 02/ 06.04.2026: Mr. Jalaj Pati Tiwari, learned counsel submits that he is in receipt of vakalatnama on behalf of informant however, the same has not been filed as the matter was on Board. 2. In view of above the vakalatnama is taken on record. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the informant. 4. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Korrah P.S. Case No. 209 of 2025, registered under sections 63 and 89 of BNS, 2023, pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M, Hazaribag. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that allegations are made that on the pretext of marriage physical relationship has been established. He further submits that initially complaint was filed and subsequently the said complaint was converted into F.I.R by the order of the learned court. He next submits that both the parties were in relationship since 2021 and first physical relationship was established in the year, 2022 which continued and thereafter complaint case was filed on 09.09.2025. On these grounds, he submits that the petitioner may kindly be provided privilege of anticipatory bail. ( 2026:JHHC:9576 ) 6. Learned counsels for the State and informant oppose the prayer and submit that allegation of twice abortion of pregnancy is there. 7. Looking into contents of F.I.R, it transpires that both the parties were in relationship since 2021 and first physical relationship was established in the year, 2022 which continued and thereafter complaint case was filed on 09.09.2025. What has happened that is consensual in nature. The allegation of abortion is made that is prior period and in that view of the matter, petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned court within two weeks from today and the learned court shall release the petitioners on terms and conditions and sureties as learned court deems fit and proper. 8. This anticipatory bail application is disposed of. Dt.06.04.2026 ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) satyarthi-