Anticipatory bail application rejected. The court held that direct and specific allegations of outraging modesty and assault against the petitioner precluded granting bail, despite claims of false implication by a relative.
Anticipatory bail prayer is rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[ 2026:JHHC:27956]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 5152 of 2026
xxxxxx
..... … Petitioner Versus
The State of Jharkhand
..... … Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI -----For the Petitioner : Mr. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate. For the State : Mrs. Lily Sahay, A.P.P. ------
03/ 16.09.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
On perusal of the FIR, it transpires that the allegations of
-1-
[ 2026:JHHC:27956]
making assault is there against all the accused persons, however, there is direct and specific allegations are there against the petitioner Raju Yadav and one Visheshwar Yadav of outraging the modesty of the
informant.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Dated:-16.09.2026 Amitesh/-
-2-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC in connection with cases of outraging modesty and assault.
Whether the nature of allegations and facts warrant the grant of anticipatory bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
RAJU YADAV
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
