Dismissed¶13

Nagendra Kuluwa v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC19 Jun 2026B.A./5140/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejected; Nagendra Kuluwa v. State of Jharkhand; B.A. No. 5140 of 2026; Jharkhand High Court; Sections 376(2)(n)/506 IPC; Section 67(A) Information Technology (Amendment) Act; Chaibasa Sadar P.S. Case No. 86 of 2023; G.R. No. 566 of 2023; S.T. No. 36 of 2024; Additional Sessions Judge-II, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa; earlier bail rejected 06.02.2024 (B.A. No. 10021 of 2023); victim P.W. 2 contradictions; custody since 30.07.2023; directions to produce remaining witnesses promptly; Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.; decided 19.06.2026.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioner; bail prayer rejected. Directions issued to the State to promptly produce the remaining witnesses and to communicate the order to the Director, Prosecution and Superintendent of Police of the concerned District for compliance. ¶13

Nagendra Kuluwa Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, in custody since 30.07.2023 in S.T. No. 36 of 2024 (Chaibasa Sadar P.S. Case No. 86 of 2023) for offences under Sections 376(2)(n)/506 IPC and Section 67(A) of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, should be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Court's answer

Considering the seriousness of the offence alleged against the petitioner, the court was not inclined to enlarge him on bail, and the prayer for bail was rejected.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

The State was directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses are promptly produced before the court so that the trial is taken to a logical end.

¶14

Key takeaways

Learned counsel for the State was directed to communicate the order to the Director, Prosecution and Superintendent of Police of the concerned District to ensure compliance.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail Application (High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi; decided 19.06.2026; Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) - Prayer for bail of Nagendra Kuluwa, in custody since 30.07.2023 in connection with Chaibasa Sadar P.S. Case No. 86 of 2023 (G.R. No. 566 of 2023), S.T. No. 36 of 2024, for offences under Sections 376(2)(n)/506 IPC and Section 67(A) of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, pending before the Additional Sessions Judge-II, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, was rejected. The court noted the earlier rejection of bail on merit on 06.02.2024 in B.A. No. 10021 of 2023 and the submission that the victim (P.W. 2) had not fully supported the prosecution case, but considering the seriousness of the offence alleged, declined bail. The State was directed to ensure prompt production of the remaining witnesses so the trial reaches a logical end, and to communicate the order to the Director, Prosecution and the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district for compliance.

¶1

( 2026:JHHC:17974 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5140 of 2026

¶3

Nagendra Kuluwa son of Viranchi Kuluwa … … Petitioner Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand

¶5

… … Opp. Party ---

¶6

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Ajay Kumar Pathak, A.P.P.

¶7

¶8

02 /19.06.2026

¶9

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

¶10

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 30.07.2023, in connection with Chaibasa Sadar P.S. Case No. 86 of 2023, corresponding to G.R. No. 566 of 2023, S.T. No. 36 of 2024, for the offences registered under Sections 376(2) (n)/506 of the IPC and Section 67(A) of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, West Singhbhum, at Chaibasa.

¶11

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected on merit vide order dated 06.02.2024 in B.A. No. 10021 of 2023. The learned counsel submits that the victim has been examined as P.W. 2 but she has not fully supported the prosecution case in as much as there are numerous contradictions in her evidence.

¶12

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that remaining witness would be promptly produced before the court.

¶13

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the seriousness of offence alleged against the petitioner, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected.

¶14

6. However, the State is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses are promptly produced before the court so that the trial is taken to a logical end.

¶15

( 2026:JHHC:17974 )

¶16

7. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution and Superintendent of Police of the concerned District to ensure compliance.

¶17

8. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e-mail.

¶18

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶19

Dated: 19.06.2026 Uploaded on 20.06.2026

¶20

Binit/

¶21

Nagendra Kuluwa v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagendra Kuluwa v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ankush Kumar @ Ankush Vs the State of Jharkhand through A.C.B.

Ms The Tata Pigments Limited Through Vaidyanathan Natarajan Vs Labour

Shashi Shankar Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Islam Alias Bali Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mahesh Kumar Paswan Vs M/S Bharat Coking Coal Limited

Baliya Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand