Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Dibyendu Das Roy Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Home
Jharkhand HC
2026
Dibyendu Das Roy Vs the State of JharkhandDibyendu Das Roy v. the State of Jharkhand

Dismissed¶15

Dibyendu Das Roy v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC8 Jul 2026A.B.A./3598/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail (A.B.A.) rejected — Dibyendu Das Roy v. The State of Jharkhand, A.B.A. No. 3598 of 2026, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, dated 08.07.2026 — Mango P.S. Case No. 37 of 2026, Jamshedpur — offences under Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Sections 64(1), 67, 73, 115(2), 308(2), 308(3), 318(4), 351(2), 351(3), 352, 69) — allegations of forcibly establishing physical relations, blackmailing, photographs/video and threats to make them viral — privacy of woman held a serious consideration — delay (occurrence January 2023, complaint 28.01.2026) did not aid bail — informant married lady — informatory petition 27.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail declined: although the relationship aspect exists, the allegations of blackmailing the informant and taking away the privacy of a lady (video/photos with threats to make them viral) are serious matters, so the court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner who is apprehending arrest in Mango P.S. Case No. 37 of 2026 (offences under Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023). +1 more

Court's answer

Anticipatory bail declined: although the relationship aspect exists, the allegations of blackmailing the informant and taking away the privacy of a lady (video/photos with threats to make them viral) are serious matters, so the court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail.

Ratio / Principle

The court acknowledged the gap between the first occurrence (January 2023) and the complaint lodged on 28.01.2026 (converted into FIR), but held that the allegations of blackmailing outweighed the delay.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory Bail Application — rejected (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J., 08.07.2026). The petitioner, apprehending arrest in Mango P.S. Case No. 37 of 2026 (Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur), registered under Sections 64(1), 67, 73, 115(2), 308(2), 308(3), 318(4), 351(2), 351(3), 352 and 69 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, sought anticipatory bail on the grounds of false implication, the three-year gap between the first occurrence (January 2023) and the complaint lodged on 28.01.2026 (converted into FIR), and the informant being a married lady; an informatory petition had been filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur on 27.01.2026. Counsel for the State and the informant jointly opposed, alleging forcible physical relations, blackmailing, taking of photographs/video and threats to make them viral on social media. The Court observed that while having a relationship was one aspect, taking away the privacy of any lady is a serious matter, and in the attending facts and circumstances declined to grant anticipatory bail; the prayer was accordingly rejected.

A

2026:JHHC:20068

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3598 of 2026

------

Dibyendu Das Roy, aged about 30 years, son of Susrota Das Roy, Resident of Pradhan Tola, Gurudwara Parsudin, P.O. Tatanagar, P.S. Parsudih, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum

.... .... …. Petitioner

Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

For the Petitioner : Mr. Altamas Khan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Viaks Kumar, Advocate

------

02/08.07.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Mango P.S. Case No. 37 of 2026, registered for the offence under Sections 64(1), 67, 73, 115(2), 308(2), 308(3), 318(4), 351(2), 351(3), 352 and 69 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Jamshedpur.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and the allegations of forcibly establishing the physical relationship are not correct. He further submits that the occurrence is of the year 2023, whereas the complaint case has been lodged on 28.01.2026. He next submits that an informatory petition was filed by the petitioner before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur on 27.01.2026. He also submits that the informant is a married lady and in view of that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted.

Learned counsel appearing for the State and the informant jointly oppose the prayer and submit that the allegations are there of forcibly establishing the physical relationship and further blackmailing the informant and even the photographs have been taken and threatening has been made to make the same viral. On these grounds, they submit that anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected.

2026:JHHC:20068

There is no doubt that the first occurrence is of January, 2023 and the complaint case has been lodged on 28.01.2026 which has been converted into FIR however, allegations are there of blackmailing the informant and further taking the video and threatening to put it on the social media. Having relationship is one of the aspect however, taking away the privacy of any lady is a serious matter, in the attending facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner, is hereby, rejected.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J . )

Dated 08.07.2026 Anit

Uploaded 09.07.2026

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner who is apprehending arrest in Mango P.S. Case No. 37 of 2026 (offences under Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).¶11
The court held
Anticipatory bail declined: although the relationship aspect exists, the allegations of blackmailing the informant and taking away the privacy of a lady (video/photos with threats to make them viral) are serious matters, so the court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail.ratio¶15
2.
Whether the delay in lodging the complaint (occurrence of January 2023; complaint dated 28.01.2026) favours the grant of anticipatory bail.¶12
The court held
The court acknowledged the gap between the first occurrence (January 2023) and the complaint lodged on 28.01.2026 (converted into FIR), but held that the allegations of blackmailing outweighed the delay.ratio¶15

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 202364(1), 67, 73, 115(2), 308(2), 308(3), 318(4), 351(2), 351(3), 352 and 69¶11

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
FIR registered as Mango P.S. Case No. 37 of 2026 for offences under Sections 64(1), 67, 73, 115(2), 308(2), 308(3), 318(4), 351(2), 351(3), 352 and 69 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.¶11
Prior proceeding
The said case is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur.¶11
Prior proceeding
First occurrence was in January 2023; complaint case lodged on 28.01.2026 and converted into FIR.¶15
Prior proceeding
An informatory petition was filed by the petitioner before the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur on 27.01.2026.¶12

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Dibyendu Das Roy¶4
Altamas Khan
respondent
The State of Jharkhand¶6
Sanjay Kumar Srivastava
other
The Informant¶8
Viaks Kumar

Coram

AI extract

Sanjay Kumar Dwivediauthor¶7

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Jharkhand HC
Decided on: 8 Jul 2026 · July
Registered: 27 Jun 2026
Case no.: A.B.A./3598/2026
CNR: JHHC010189642026
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Disposal: Rejected
Case type: A.B.A.

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Rahul Kumar Saw Vs the State Ofjharkhand
7 Jul 2026
Fatik Chandra Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand
7 Jul 2026
Nagendra Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand
7 Jul 2026
Nitish Ranjan Vs the State of Jharkhand
8 Jul 2026
Arun Ram Alias Arun Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand
8 Jul 2026
Niranjan Rawani Vs the State of Jharkhand
8 Jul 2026

Cite this judgement

Dibyendu Das Roy v. the State of Jharkhand, A.B.A./3598/2026 (JH), decided on 8 July 2026.

The High Court of Jharkhand publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 202364(1), 67, 73, 115(2), 308(2), 308(3), 318(4), 351(2), 351(3), 352 and 69

View all statutes

Procedural history4

FIR registered as Mango P.S. Case No. 37 of 2026 for offences under Sections 64(1), 67, 73, 115(2), 308(2), 308(3), 318(4), 351(2), 351(3), 352 and 69 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The said case is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Parties & counsel