Lalit Oroan vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 2981 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Lalit Oroan vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite ... on 13 April, 2026

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

                                                                     2026:JHHC:10571




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                                 B.A. No. 1113 of 2026

            Lalit Oroan, S/O Bijay Oraon @ Vijay Oraon
                                                  ...    ...     Petitioner
                                     Versus
            The State of Jharkhand         ...        ...      Opposite Party
                                     ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

            For the Petitioner       : Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, Advocate
            For the Opp. Party       : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, APP
                                     ---

05/13.04.2026         Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. A counter-affidavit has been filed during the court proceedings which is taken on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 28.11.2025 in connection with Ghaghra P.S. Case No. 106 of 2025, registered under Sections 70(1) and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gumla.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, rather the fact is that the husband of the victim was away and there was love affair between the petitioner and the victim. He has also submitted that there is delay of 33 days in lodging the First Information Report. The date of incident is 11.09.2025 and the First Information Report has been lodged on 14.10.2025.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner and the delay in lodging the FIR has been explained as the petitioner is alleged to have threatened the victim that he would kill her husband. He has submitted that the trial has already commenced and one witness has been examined.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the direct and serious allegation made against the petitioner and the fact that trial has already commenced, this court is 2026:JHHC:10571

not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected.

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

8. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution and also to the 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:13.04.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:14.04.2026