Kanchan Mal vs The State Of Jharkhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 2985 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Kanchan Mal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 April, 2026

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

                                                               2026:JHHC:10588




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                        B.A. No. 333 of 2026

     Kanchan Mal, S/o: Ashok Mal                    ...      ...      Petitioner
                            Versus
  1. The State of Jharkhand
  2. Victim                                   ...        ... Opposite Paries
                            ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : Ms. Anuradha Sahay, Advocate For the Victim : Ms. Aishwarya Prakash, Advocate

---

04/13.04.2026

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 21.04.2025 in connection with Jama P.S. Case No. 21 of 2025 (S.T. Case No. 116 of 2025), for the alleged offence registered under Sections 69 of the BNS Act pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dumka as S.T. Case No. 116 of 2025.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was love affair between the petitioner and the victim since 2019 and when the petitioner wanted to get married to some other lady, the present case has been lodged in the year 2025. He has submitted that the victim was examined before the court as P.W.1 on 08.09.2025. However, her further cross examination was adjourned to the next date.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner and out of 7 witnesses, one was already examined as on 23.09.2025 and a few must have been examined in the meantime.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the direct allegation against the petitioner and that the trial

2026:JHHC:10588

is in progress, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

6. The instant bail application is accordingly rejected.

7. However, the State is directed to ensure prompt production of witnesses.

8. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution as well as Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance.

9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through 'FAX/E-mail'.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 13.04.2026 Rakesh/-

Uploaded on:-14.04.2026