Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5979 (JHR)

MANOJ VERMA ALIAS MANOJ KUMAR VERMA v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./2521/2026 · 2026-04-15

Anubha Rawat Choudhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

( 2026:JHHC:10730 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 2521 of 2026 Manoj Verma @ Manoj Kumar Verma son of Binod Prasad Verma @ Binod Verma … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Kumar Roy, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Vijoy Kumar Sinha, APP --- 03/15.04.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 04.11.2025 in connection with Jamua P.S. Case No. 259 of 2025, S.T. No. 21 of 2026, for the offences registered under Sections 87/64(1)/127/329/351(2) of the B.N.S. 2023, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Giridih. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner was in love affair with the victim who was 19 years of age at the time of occurrence. The learned counsel submits that there is delay in filing the FIR by three days. Initially the victim was found missing and on suspicion, the petitioner was made accused in the FIR. He has also submitted that there is no sign of rape in medical examination of the victim. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the victim has supported the allegation under Section 183 of the BNSS and the petitioner is a married person who has taken advantage of the tender age of the victim and had taken ( 2026:JHHC:10730 ) 2 away the victim. He has also submitted that as per the medical report, hymen was found torn. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the direct allegation against the petitioner supported by the statement of the victim under Section 183 of the BNSS, 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 court concerned through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 15.04.2026 Uploaded on: 16.04.2026 Binit/