( 2026:JHHC:29238 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9059 of 2026 Sakim Ansari @ Shakeem Ansari aged about 26 years son of late Makaruddin Miyan, r/o village-Saharpura, P.O. Bena, P.S. and Dist. Jamtara … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Prakash Chandra Roy, Advocate For the State : Ms. Bandana Sinha, A.P.P. --- 04/29.09.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Jamtara P.S. Case No. 18 of 2026, for the offences registered under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 87,62,3(5) of the B.N.S. 2023, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner happens to be the husband of the victim. He has referred to Annexure-2 at page- 14 to submit that in a panchayati it was decided that the petitioner and the victim will live together and that there was love affair between them and they got married. The learned counsel has further submitted that victim had instituted a criminal case against the petitioner for the alleged offence under Section 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code which was Narayanpur P.S. Case No. 105 of 2025 and the petitioner has been acquitted in the said case. The bail order of the petitioner passed in the said case has been placed at Annexure-3 and the bail was granted on the ground that the there was consensual relationship between them. 4. The learned counsel for the opposite party-informant has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the informant victim is not the wife of the petitioner, rather certain signature was forcibly taken on the compromise petition which was ultimately filed in the previous case being Narayanpur P.S. Case No. 105 of 2025. The learned counsel submits that so far as present case is concerned, ( 2026:JHHC:29238 ) 2 the allegation as levelled in the FIR be taken into consideration and the informant specifically denies that the petitioner is the husband of the informant/victim. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the victim has denied that the petitioner is her husband and there is direct allegation against the petitioner in the FIR, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected. 6. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 29.09.2026 Uploaded on 30.09.2026 Binit/