This is an order rejecting a bail application. The High Court, after hearing counsel and noting specific allegations and the fact that the victim was unexamined, declined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at that stage.
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:27545
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 7964 of 2026
Upendra Sao @ Upendra Kumar Sao, son of Hari Saw, aged about- 21 years, resident of village- Nawadih Barauni, P.O.- Barauni, P.S.- Chatra Sadar, District-Chatra. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --For the Petitioner : Mr. Diwakar Jha, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Ms. Amrita Kumari, Advocate ---
04/14th September 2026
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Chatra Sadar P.S. Case No. 228/2026 for the offence registered under Section 329(4), 76, 303(2), 62, 352, 351(2) of BNS and Section 8 of POCSO Act, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, POCSO Act, Chatra.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 06.06.2026 and has been falsely implicated in this case. Both the petitioner and the victim are major and they were in love relationship, but on account of some dispute regarding caste, their marriage could not be solemnized.
3. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner, along with the co-accused, entered into the informant’s house by climbing wall and on seeing the victim alone, the petitioner tried to outrage her modesty, due to which she started shouting loudly. So far as the petitioner is concerned, it is alleged that he stripped the informant’s daughter and assaulted her, as a result of which the victim sustained injuries. The petitioner was apprehended on
1
2026:JHHC:27545
the spot in the night. The learned counsel submits that the victim is yet to be examined before the learned court.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the direct and specific allegation against the petitioner and also the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of BNSS and the fact that the victim is yet to be examined, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Hence, this bail application is hereby rejected .
5. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Dated: 14.09.2026 Uploaded On: 17.09.2026 Mukul/-
2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner who is in custody under Sections 329(4), 76, 303(2), 62, 352, 351(2) of BNS and Section 8 of POCSO Act given that specific allegations exist and the vi
Upendra Sao @ Upendra Kumar Sao
The State of Jharkhand
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
