2026:JHHC:11269 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 1795 of 2026 Amit Ranjan, Son of Avinash Kumar … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Avnish Prakhar, Advocate Mr. Krishna Murari Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajay Kumar Pathak, Advocate For the Informant : Mr. Jitesh Kumar, Advocate --- 06/18th April 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Kadma P.S. Case No. 37/2025 [S.T. Case No. 482/2025] for the offence registered under Sections 85/89/118(1)/115(2)/126(2)/303(2)/351(2)/352(3)/3(5) of BNS, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Jamshedpur. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, though the husband of the victim, has been falsely implicated in this case and he is in custody since 04.10.2025. He submits that the victim is a person who is habitual of filing false case. In support of this contention, learned counsel has referred to the bail order passed in B.A. No. 11738/2020 in the case of Bhabesh Kumar Jha @ Bhawesh Kumar Jha, wherein the same victim had instituted a case under Sections 323, 376, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. However, said Bhabesh Kumar Jha has been granted bail by this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that a petition for declaring the marriage as nullity has been filed in the Civil Court on 15.04.2025 and the FIR was instituted on 06.05.2025. The learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner married the victim because 2026:JHHC:11269 2 she was allegedly blackmailing him by threatening to institute a criminal case against him. 4. The learned counsel has further submitted that the entire allegation levelled against the petitioner is false and out of 16 charge-sheet witnesses, 2 have been examined so far, lastly on 10.04.2026 including the mother of the victim, who has not supported the prosecution case. However, the witnesses were not declared hostile. He has submitted that the deposition of witnesses have not been placed on record in this case. He has further submitted that there are altogether 16 charge-sheeted witnesses and the trial may take quite some time. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party has opposed the prayer and has referred to the counter-affidavit to submit that the victim had sustained multiple burn injuries, which were approximately three months old from her examination. He has also submitted that as per the allegation, the victim was subjected to forceful abortion prior to marriage and there is demand of money by the petitioner and that the victim was also forced to undertake physical relationship with other friends of the petitioner, who used to be invited at home. The learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail. 6. To this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the medical reports and photographs, which have been annexed along with the counter-affidavit, are of private doctor and the same has no relevance in the matter. 7. So far as the bail granted to one Bhabesh Kumar Jha in B.A. No. 11738/2020 is concerned, the same is in relation to another case said to have been instituted by the victim and merely because the victim has lodged a case against him, the same also has no bearing in this case. Admittedly the petitioner has been married to the victim. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the serious nature of allegation as made against the petitioner, who is admittedly the husband of the victim and also the fact that the trial is in progress and two witnesses have been examined till 10.04.2026, this Court is not inclined 2026:JHHC:11269 3 to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is rejected. As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the next date in the trial is 20.04.2026. 9. However, the State is directed to ensure prompt production of the witnesses during trial. 10. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Director, Prosecution as well as Superintendent of Police of the concerned district for compliance. 11. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 18.04.2026 Uploaded On: Mukul/-