Rahul Thakur vs The State Of Jharkhand .... .... .... ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 946 Jhar

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 946 Jhar
Judgement Date : 10 February, 2026

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Rahul Thakur vs The State Of Jharkhand .... .... .... ... on 10 February, 2026

Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

                                                                    2026:JHHC:3547



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 B.A. No. 11894 of 2025
                        ------

Rahul Thakur, S/o Vijay Thakur, R/o Vill. Lali, P.O. & P.S.-Manika, District-Latehar, Jharkhand .... .... .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kr. Chaturvedi, Advocate Mr. Raj Shekhar Jha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, APP

------

Order No.02 / Dated : `10.02.2026.

Heard both the sides.

This bail application has been filed on behalf of Rahul Thakur who is in custody since 12.09.2025 in connection with Latehar Mahila P.S. Case No. 11 of 2025 for the offences registered under Sections 70(1) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 pending in the Court of learned C.J.M., Latehar, is pressed into motion.

As per the FIR, this petitioner along with the co-accused gave lift to the prosecutrix on their motorcycle while she was going to her maternal uncle's home. However, they took the prosecutrix in the opposite direction towards Chandwa and committed rape with her in the evening near bush.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the main allegation is against co-accused Sonu Thakur who was in contact with the prosecutrix and further, there is inordinate delay of one day in lodging the FIR. Further, the accused was not medically examined.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner is named in the FIR and there is direct and specific allegation of committing gang rape with the prosecutrix. A day's delay cannot be said to be inordinate. The prosecutrix has fully supported the prosecution case in her statement under Section 183 of the BNSS. The statement of solitary prosecutrix is sufficient for conviction of an accused.

Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is hereby rejected.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Pawan/ Uploaded 11.02.2026