2026:JHHC:161 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 9346 of 2025 ----- YYY … …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … …. Opp. Party ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate Mr. Shiv Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate ----- Oral Order 05 / Dated : 06.01.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner named above has been made accused in connection with Birni P.S. Case No. 190 of 2025 for the offence registered under Section 64(1) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in the court of C.J.M., Giridih or his successor. 3. The informant is the own elder Bhabhi of the petitioner, aged about 40 years. As per the case of the informant/prosecutrix, on 10.07.2025 while she was returning from her paddy field, at around 6 O’clock the petitioner offered her lift on his motorcycle to drop her home. However, instead of taking her home, she was taken into the jungle area and rape was committed with her. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a classic example of false case lodged because of property dispute between the parties. Since the parties are on litigating terms, therefore, there was no occasion that the victim would have consented to lift being offered by the petitioner. Wife of the present petitioner had earlier lodged Jamua P.S. Case No. 181/2024 under Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 75, 303(2), 351(2) & 352 of BNS against the husband of the victim and he was released on bail after being in custody for more than six months. 5. It is further contended that the father-in-law, aged 70 years, of the informant had also given an informatory petition to the Officer In- 2026:JHHC:161 2 charge of Jamua Police Station on 12.07.2024 stating therein that the present petitioner was looking after him and his wife and due to property dispute, they used to abuse and threaten them to implicate in a false case. Another such informatory petition (Annexure-3) was given on 21.07.2024 by the father of the present petitioner. The allegation of rape is not, at all, substantiated by the medico legal examination report as no injury was found on the victim lady. 6. Learned counsel for the State, assisted by learned counsel for the informant, has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the statement of the victim herself is sufficient to prove the charge of rape. It is also submitted that in her statement made under Section 183 of BNSS, the victim has fully supported the case. The independent witnesses have also supported the case that the victim was being forcibly taken by the petitioner. 7. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, it is apparent that the parties are on litigating terms with regard to the property dispute and the father of the petitioner, who happens to be the father-in-law of the victim lady, had lodged an informatory petition regarding the said dispute. The allegation of rape is not substantiated by the medico legal examination report and there is delay of six days in lodging the FIR without any explanation. Under the circumstance, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Court below. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT/Satendra Uploaded 07.01.2026