Single-judge High Court bench rejected bail application, holding that petitioner remains liable to trial given serious direct allegation and victim not yet examined in complex trial court.
Bail rejected. Petitioner directed to renew prayer after six months; State to ensure victim examined.
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:27517
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 8411 of 2026
Aakash Bauri, Aged about 33 years, son of Lobin Bauri @ Navin Bauri, Resident of 73, Seematand Bauri Tola, Near Saraswati Sankar Sishu Kendra, P.O. & P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanbad.
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanddip Barnwal, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, APP ---
03 /14.09.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Baliapur P.S. Case No. 203 of 2025, registered under Section 74 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, now pending in the court of learned JMFC, Dhanbad.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 10.07.2026 and though he is named in the First Information Report, but he has not been apprehended on the spot. It is alleged that the petitioner was trying to outrage the modesty of a girl staying in the temple, who was mentally disturbed.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the mobile phone, a cycle along with ear band and earphone were recovered from the temple premises and while the people of the locality tried to rescue the girl, the petitioner ran away from the place of occurrence.
5. Considering the direct allegation against the petitioner and the fact that victim is yet to be examined before the learned court, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage and hence, this bail application is rejected.
6. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after six months.
7. In the meantime, the State shall ensure that the witnesses, particularly the victim, is examined before the learned court.
2026:JHHC:27517
8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Director, Prosecution and Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance.
9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Date of Order:14.09.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:16.09.2026
2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioner should be granted bail in connection with a serious non-bailable offence pending before JMFC.
Whether further inquiry regarding victim examination necessitates rejection of bail at this stage.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Aakash Bauri
The State of Jharkhand
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
