Dismissed¶20

Raju Kumar Mishra v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC13 Feb 2026A.B.A./416/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail rejected; A.B.A. No. 416 of 2026; High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi; Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi; Raju Kumar Mishra; Chandrapura P.S. Case No.87 of 2025; A.C.J.M. Bermo at Tenughat; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 Sections 126(2), 127(2), 115(2), 123, 74, 318(4), 316(2), 351(3), 3(5); alleged molestation of informant's daughter kept for pooja; false implication claim; delay in FIR; State opposed; prayer for anticipatory bail rejected.

What did the court decide?

In the attending facts and circumstances, the court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and accordingly rejected his prayer for anticipatory bail. ¶20

Raju Kumar Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:JHHC:4286

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI A.B.A. No. 416 of 2026

¶3

----

¶4

Raju Kumar Mishra, aged about 38 years, S/o – Late Krishnakant Mishra, R/o Kurpania, Q. No.226, PO – Sunday Bazar, PS – Gandhi Nagar (Bermo), District – Bokaro, Jharkhand .... Petitioner

¶5

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

¶6

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶8

--For the Petitioner :- Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate :- Mr. Birendra Prasad, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, Advocate

¶9

¶10

05 /13.02.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the State.

¶11

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Chandrapura P.S. Case No.87 of 2025 for the alleged offences registered under Sections 126(2), 127(2), 115(2), 123, 74, 318(4), 316(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat.

¶12

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and what has happened as alleged in the FIR is not correct and there is delay in lodging of the FIR.

¶13

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer

¶14

and submits that serious allegation is there against the petitioner

¶15

--1--

¶16

A.B.A. No. 416 of 2026

¶17

2026:JHHC:4286

¶18

and the petitioner has kept the daughter of the informant in the house on the ground that he will do certain pooja for her curement that she was suffering from ailment. On this ground, he submits that the anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected.

¶19

5. In the FIR, it has been alleged that the petitioner has instigated the father of the informant to send her to his place for doing certain pooja so that she will be cured. She was kept there and the petitioner has molested her that is the allegation and the informant some how managed to escape from the house of the petitioner and serious allegation is there against the petitioner.

¶20

6. In the attending facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

¶21

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶22

Dated 13.02.2026 Sangam/

¶23

--2--

¶24

A.B.A. No. 416 of 2026

Raju Kumar Mishra v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Kumar Mishra v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Binod Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chandu Yadav Alias Chandrashekhar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sandeep Kumar Vs the Union of India through CBI

Salman Ansari Alias Salmon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pradeep Kumar Singh @ Guddu Vs State of Jharkhand

Pradip Prasad Alias Pradeep Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand