2026:JHHC:9400 1 | P a g e IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.1823 of 2026 Dinesh Kumar Choudhary @ Dinesh Choudhary, aged about 22 years, S/o. Jitan Choudhary, R/o. Gopalpur, Pilartola, P.O.- Sakrigali, P.S.- Ganga Nadi, Dist.- Sahibganj, Jharkhand. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava For the Petitioner : Mr. Pratiush Lala, Adv. For the State : Mrs. Lily Sahay, APP Order No.03/Dated- 02.04.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. 2. The petitioner has been made an accused in connection with Ganga Nadi P.S. Case No. 29/2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 751/2025, registered for offences punishable under Sections 84, 87, 64, 303(2), 351(2) & 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023, which is pending in the Court of learned C.J.M., Sahibganj. 3. The Petitioner along with co-accused persons are alleged to have enticed away the victim and took her to Panjab for providing her job, where they committed rape upon her on several occasions for a period of one week. It is also alleged that they snatched her golden and silver jewelries. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that independent witnesses, interrogated during the investigation, have categorically stated that there was love affair between the petitioner and the victim, who was already married. It is further submitted that due to complaint lodged by father-in-law of the victim, both the petitioner and victim returned from Punjab and there was protest against solemnization of marriage as she was already married, therefore, 2026:JHHC:9400 2 | P a g e allegation of rape cannot be entertained at all. It is also submitted that petitioner is in custody since 22.09.2025 and charge-sheet has also been submitted in this case. Petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the investigation and trial of the case and abides by all terms and conditions which may be imposed. Hence, the petitioner may be admitted to bail. 5. On the other hand learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and has submitted that there is no such averment in the F.I.R. on the part of the victim that she was in love affair with the petitioner rather she was induced for providing job and thereafter petitioner raped her. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve bail. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected at this stage. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) 02.04.2026 Rahul Uploaded on 02/04/2026