Rajendra Choudhary @ Haknu Choudhary vs The State Of Jharkhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 1280 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Rajendra Choudhary @ Haknu Choudhary vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 February, 2026

Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   Cr. Appeal (DB) No.802 of 2025

    Rajendra Choudhary @ Haknu Choudhary, aged about 24 years, Son
    of Arjun Choudhary, Resident of Village Chauthasa, Tola - Kharkati,
    P.O. Harinamar, P.S. Chainpur, District - Palamau.
                                                    ...   Appellant
                                 Versus
    The State of Jharkhand                          ...   Respondent
                                  -------

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

-------

For the Appellant : Mr. Anupam Anand, Adv. For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P.

-------

Order No.05/Dated- 18.02.2026 I.A. No.17016 of 2025

1. Heard Mr. Anupam Anand, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P.

2. This application has been preferred by the appellant for grant of bail to him during the pendency of this appeal.

3. The appellant has been convicted for the offences under Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 read with Section 5(i) of the POCSO Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years along with fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

4. It has been alleged that when the victim had gone for grazing cattle, she was subjected to rape by the appellant.

5. Submission has been advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that there are contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1, who happens to be the victim and P.W.4 with respect to the place where she had disclosed about the incident of commission of rape upon her by the appellant. It has further been submitted that as per the evidence of the doctor, who has been examined as P.W.7, the victim had stated about falling down from the stairs and even P.W.7 has opined that there is a possibility of a sexual assault upon the victim.

6. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.

7. The evidence of the victim who has been examined as P.W.1 categorizes the manner of commission of rape upon her by the appellant. Age of the victim has been assessed to be 12 to 13 years and several injuries were found on her private parts.

8. On consideration of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to admit the appellant on bail. His prayer for bail is hereby rejected.

9. Accordingly, I.A. No.17016 of 2025 stands rejected.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Dated: 18th February, 2026 Sachin/