Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 6321 (JHR)

MD SAJID v. STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./1884/2026 · 2026-04-10

Anubha Rawat Choudhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:10318 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 1884 of 2026 Md. Sajid, Son of Md. Alam … … Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Naveen Kr. Jaiswal, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Ms. Ruby Pandey, APP --- 04/10.04.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 28.10.2025 in connection with Ranchi Sadar P.S. Case No. 522 of 2025, registered under Sections 64(1) and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ranchi. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and there is delay of two days in filing the First Information Report, although the police station is just 800 meters away. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that there is serious allegation against the petitioner of committing rape upon the victim. The petitioner was a contractor and the offence was alleged to have been committed in an under-construction building. 5. At this, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that witnesses are not turning up before the court, although the trial has commenced. 6. The impugned order reveals that the statement of the victim was recorded under section 183 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and she has supported the allegation. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the direct allegation made against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected. 2026:JHHC:10318 2 8. However, the State is directed to ensure that the witnesses are promptly produced before the learned court. 9. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution and also to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance. 10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:10.04.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:14.04.2026