RAGHUBANSH KUMAR @ RABHUBANSH KUMAR @ RAGHUVANSH KUMAR v. STATE OF JHARKHAND
B.A./2687/2026 · 2026-04-06
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 2720 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 2720 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:JHHC:9582
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 2687 of 2026
Raghubansh Kumar @ Rabhubansh Kumar @ Raghuvansh Kumar, son of Biren Choudhary
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
… … Opp. Party
---
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner
: Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate
For the Opp. Party
: Mr. Santosh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
---
04/6th April 2026
1.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with S.T. Case No. 248/2025 arising out of Meharma P.S. Case No. 56/2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 537/2025 for the offence registered under Sections 64(1)/333 of BNS and charge has been framed under Sections 64, 333, 115(2) of BNS, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Godda.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no progress in the trial and the petitioner is in custody since 14.04.2025. He submits that the bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected in B.A. No. 6770/2025 vide order dated 09.10.2025.
3.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner that he forcibly entered into the house of the informant and raped her. He submits that as per impugned order dated 17.12.2025, the trial is in progress, inasmuch as, two out of five witnesses were examined.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that there is direct allegation against the petitioner, whose bail application has been rejected earlier and the trial is in progress, this Court
2026:JHHC:9582
2
is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is rejected.
5. However, the State is directed to ensure prompt production of the witnesses during trial.
6.
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 prompt production of the witnesses on the date as may be fixed by the learned trial court.
7. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Dated: 06.04.2026
Uploaded On: 07.04.2026
Mukul/-