Babuji Soren vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 1720 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Babuji Soren vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 10 March, 2026

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

                                                              2026:JHHC:6277

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                           B.A. No.1305 of 2026
                                 -----
           Babuji Soren, son of Bodo Soren, resident of village Kunji, PO
           Kurmahat, PS Hansdiha, District Dumka, Jharkhand
                                                         ... Petitioner(s).
                                 Versus
           The State of Jharkhand                        ... Opposite Party(s).

           CORAM         :     SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

           For the Petitioner(s)    : Mr. A. K. Sinha, Advocate
           For the State            : Mr. Achinto Sen, APP

                                    .........

02 /10.03.2026: This bail application has been filed under Sections 483 & 484 of BNSS, 2023 wherein, prayer has been made for grant of bail as he is in custody for allegedly committing offence punishable under Sections 376D, 395, 412/149 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and have also gone through the impugned order.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the First Information Report (FIR) has been registered against unknown and the petitioner was not arrested from the spot and nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner.

4. Learned APP opposes the prayer for bail.

5. After hearing the parties and going through the records, I find that the victim and her husband were in a world trip on their motorcycle. When they were travelling to Nepal through Jharkhand they reached the place of occurrence at night. They pitched their tent to spend the night. Then some unknown miscreants came and looted their credit card, dollars and other materials and raped the victim.

2026:JHHC:6277

6. From the impugned order it is clear that the FSL report suggest that the petitioner was one of the person who is involved in the occurrence and raped the victim. The semen sample matched with the DNA of this petitioner which is apparent from the impugned order itself. Thus, this is not a fit case to grant privilege of bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of this petitioner in connection with ST Case No. 75 of 2024 arising out of Hansdiha PS Case No. 18 of 2024 pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dumka stands rejected.

8. Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed.

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

10.03.2026 Tanuj/CP-3

Uploaded on 11.03.2026