Babuji Soren Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2026)

Babuji Soren Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the prayer for grant of bail made under Sections 483 & 484 of BNSS, 2023 by the petitioner, who is in custody for allegedly committing offences punishable under Sections 376D, 395, 412/149 of the Indian Penal Code, should be allowed.

Court's answer

On the record, and having regard to the FSL report reflected in the impugned order showing that the semen sample matched the petitioner's DNA, this Court found that the petitioner was one of the persons involved in the occurrence and had raped the victim, and accordingly held this to be not a fit case to grant the privilege of bail.

Ratio / Principle

The prayer for bail of the petitioner in connection with ST Case No. 75 of 2024, arising out of Hansdiha PS Case No. 18 of 2024, pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dumka, stands rejected, and the bail application is dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — Rejected; application dismissed. B.A. No.1305 of 2026, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Ananda Sen, J.), decided 10.03.2026. The petitioner, Babuji Soren, in custody for alleged offences punishable under Sections 376D, 395, 412/149 of the Indian Penal Code (ST Case No. 75 of 2024 arising out of Hansdiha PS Case No. 18 of 2024, pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dumka), moved under Sections 483 & 484 of BNSS, 2023. Counsel urged that the FIR stood registered against unknown persons, the petitioner was not arrested from the spot and nothing incriminating was recovered from him. Reading the records, the Court noted that the victim and her husband, touring on a motorcycle towards Nepal through Jharkhand, were robbed at night of their credit card, dollars and other materials and the victim was raped. Relying on the FSL report recorded in the impugned order, whereby the semen sample matched the DNA of the petitioner, the Court found him to be one of the persons involved in the occurrence and the rape, held it not a fit case to grant the privilege of bail, rejected the prayer for bail and dismissed the application.

2026:JHHC:6277

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

B.A. No.1305 of 2026

Babuji Soren, son of Bodo Soren, resident of village Kunji, PO Kurmahat, PS Hansdiha, District Dumka, Jharkhand

… Petitioner(s). Versus

The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party(s).

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. K. Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Achinto Sen, APP

02 /10.03.2026: This bail application has been filed under Sections 483 & 484 of BNSS, 2023 wherein, prayer has been made for grant of bail as he is in custody for allegedly committing offence punishable under Sections 376D, 395, 412/149 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and have also gone through the impugned order.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the First Information Report (FIR) has been registered against unknown and the petitioner was not arrested from the spot and nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner.

4. Learned APP opposes the prayer for bail.

5. After hearing the parties and going through the records, I find that the victim and her husband were in a world trip on their motorcycle. When they were travelling to Nepal through Jharkhand they reached the place of occurrence at night. They pitched their tent to spend the night. Then some unknown miscreants came and looted their credit card, dollars and other materials and raped the victim.

1

2026:JHHC:6277

6. From the impugned order it is clear that the FSL report suggest that the petitioner was one of the person who is involved in the occurrence and raped the victim. The semen sample matched with the DNA of this petitioner which is apparent from the impugned order itself. Thus, this is not a fit case to grant privilege of bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of this petitioner in connection with ST Case No. 75 of 2024 arising out of Hansdiha PS Case No. 18 of 2024 pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dumka stands rejected.

8. Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed .

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

10.03.2026 Tanuj/CP-3

Uploaded on 11.03.2026

2