2026:JHHC:29438 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8537 of 2026 Rahul Thakur @ Rahul Kumar, aged about 22 years, S/o Sanjay Thakur, R/o Vill & PO- Goradih, P.S.- Mohamadganj, Dist-Palamau, Jharkhand … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Ms. Anuradha Sahay, Advocate For the Informant : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate Ms. Komal S. Narayan, Advocate --- 06/30th September 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is 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 petitioner submits that it is alleged against the petitioner that the petitioner entered into the house of the victim and tried to outrage her modesty and committed rape upon her. When she resisted, the petitioner assaulted her and when the informant entered into the room and saw the petitioner, he ran away from the place of occurrence. On the next day, when the parents of the victim made complaint to the parents of the petitioner, his mother and father came to the house of the victim and assaulted her. They also abused her in open public and ultimately she committed suicide. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as the incident after the alleged occurrence is concerned, the petitioner is not involved in that incident. 2026:JHHC:29438 2 4. Learned counsel for the State as well as the Informant have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner, who entered into the house of the victim and tried to outrage her modesty, which was the main reason for the commission of the alleged offence and ultimately suicide by the victim. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the direct and specific allegation made against the petitioner as stated above, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 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: 30.09.2026 Uploaded On: 30.09.2026 Mukul/-