2026:JHHC:10991 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3192 of 2026 Rajaram Yadav, son of Lomas Yadav … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Aditya, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Ms. Priya Shrestha, Advocate [through V.C.] --- 04/17th April 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Pathargama P.S. Case No. 79/2025 for the offence registered under Sections 64, 308(3), 329 (4), 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of BNS and Section 67 of the I.T. Act, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-II, Godda. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the bail application of the petitioner has been rejected earlier by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in B.A. No. 7836/2025 vide order dated 15.10.2025. The learned counsel has submitted that the informant refused to undergo medical examination. He submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he is in custody since 27.06.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the victim has supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS. The learned counsel submits that there is direct allegation against the petitioner of committing rape upon the victim and making her obscene photographs viral on public platform. 4. The impugned order is dated 18.07.2025 and the present status of the case is not known to the learned counsel for the petitioner as well. However, he submits that the evidence is going on. 2026:JHHC:10991 2 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the bail application of the petitioner rejected on merits earlier and considering the heinous nature of offence, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is rejected. 6. However, the State is directed to ensure prompt production of the witnesses before the learned court. 7. 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 to ensure prompt production of the witnesses on the date as may be fixed by the learned trial court. 8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 17.04.2026 Uploaded On: Mukul/-