2026:JHHC:29447 2026:JHHC:29448 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8307 of 2026 Sanjay Thakur, aged about 58 years, S/o Sudama Thakur, R/o Vill. & PO- Goradih, PS Mahamadganj, Dist. Palamau, Jharkhand … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party With B.A. No. 8308 of 2026 Kunti Devi, aged about 55 years, W/o Sanjay Thakur, R/o Vill. & PO- Goradih, PS Mahamadganj, Dist. Palamau, Jharkhand … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioners : Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Informant : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate Ms. Komal S. Narayan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajay Kumar Pathak, Advocate (B.A. No. 8307 of 2026) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate (B.A. No. 8308 of 2026) --- 04/30th September 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in custody in connection with Mohmmadganj P.S. Case No. 66 of 2025 for the offence registered under Sections 74, 64(1), 62, 126(2), 115(2), 108, 351(2) (3), 352, 329(4), 3(5) of BNS and Sections 8 of POCSO Act, said to have been pending in the court of learned Exclusive Special Judge, POCSO Act, Palamau. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners, being the father and mother of the prime accused, namely, Rahul Thakur, are in custody since 26.05.2026 and charge has already been framed. The allegation against Rahul Thakur is that he entered the house of the victim and tried to outrage her modesty and commit rape upon her. When the informant entered the room, Rahul Thakur ran away from the place of 2026:JHHC:29447 2026:JHHC:29448 2 occurrence. On the next day, when the parents of the victim went to the parents of Rahul Thakur and made a complaint, they came to the house of the informant, dragged the victim by her hair and tried to take her to their house. The victim was rescued with the help of the villagers. Thereafter, on the next day, the victim committed suicide. The learned counsel submits that the charge-sheet having been submitted, the petitioners may be enlarged on bail. 3. Learned counsel for the State as well as the Informant have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that because of the conduct of the petitioners, the victim was assaulted and dragged in open public and it has come that they have been spreading wrong words against the victim, which ultimately instigated her to commit suicide. The learned counsels have also referred to paragraph 99 of the case-diary and submitted that upon enquiry by the police, it was found that the petitioners are threatening the informant party and they are pressurizing them to take back the case and the informant party is in a constant state of threat. 4. To this, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners were under fear. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering paragraph 99 of the case diary, which records that the petitioners have been pressurizing the informant party to withdraw the case and the manner in which the petitioners allegedly assaulted and dragged the victim and brought her in the public and caused disrepute to the victim which ultimately led to the victim committing suicide, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail at this stage. Hence, these bail applications are hereby rejected. 6. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 30.09.2026 Uploaded On: 01.10.2026 Mukul/-