Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 7810 (JHR)

XXX v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./3356/2026 · 2026-04-21

Anubha Rawat Choudhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:11549 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3356 of 2026 XXX. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Bijay Kr. Mishra, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, APP --- 04/21.04.2026 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 11.01.2025 in connection with Dhurwa (T) P.S. Case No.09/2025, corresponding to G.R. No.1104/2025, registered under Sections 64 (2)/115(2)/351(2)/123 of the BNS, now pending in the court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, XV, Ranchi as S.T. No.259/2025. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected on merit in B.A. No. 6914 of 2025. However, the petitioner is in custody since 11.01.2025. The charge has been framed on 15.05.2025, but the witnesses have not been produced by the State. 3. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner, being the step father, has raped the victim. However, he submits that the State shall ensure that the witnesses are promptly produced before the Court. 4. To this, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are only 5 charge sheeted witnesses. He also submits that the petitioner is suffering from various diseases, but no proper treatment is being given to the petitioner. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the direct allegation made against the petitioner and the prayer of the petitioner having been rejected earlier, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 2026:JHHC:11549 2 6. The State is directed to promptly produce the witnesses before the Court. 7. Further, the State is also directed to get the petitioner examined through a doctor and if any health issues are found, the same are required to be addressed. 8. The learned counsel for the State shall communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district and also to the Director, Prosecution to ensure compliance. 9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:21.04.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:22.04.2026