Lalmuni Choudhary @ Lalmuni Chaudhary vs The State Of Jharkhand .... .... .... ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 1861 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Lalmuni Choudhary @ Lalmuni Chaudhary vs The State Of Jharkhand .... .... .... ... on 12 March, 2026

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                          [2026:JHHC:6646]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 B.A. No.214 of 2026
                            ------

Lalmuni Choudhary @ Lalmuni Chaudhary, aged about 20 years, Son of Bachan Choudhary @ Bachan Chaudhary, Resident of Village- Majhigawa, P.O.- Bardiha, P.S.- Bardiha, Dist.- Garhwa, Jharkhand .... .... .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party

------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

     For the Petitioner        : Mr. Ashish Gautam, Advocate
                                 Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate
     For the State             : Mr. Saket Kumar, Addl.P.P
                                     ------
     Order No.03 Dated- 12-03-2026
           Heard the parties.

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Bardiha P.S. Case No.53 of 2025 registered under Section 64 (1), 351 (2) and 351 (3) of the B.N.S, 2023 and Section 4 and 6 of POCSO Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed rape upon a minor victim girl and also committed penetrative sexual assault upon her. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is further submitted that there is a delay of 9 days in lodging the F.I.R. of this case. It is next submitted that because of enmity between the family of the informant and the petitioner, this false case has been foisted against the petitioner. Drawing attention of this Court towards para-9 of the instant bail application, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. It is also submitted that the petitioner does not know as to how many witnesses have been examined during the trial. It is next submitted that the Medical Report does not conclusively establish commission of rape. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 07.10.2025. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail.

Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that keeping in view the direct nature of serious allegation against the petitioner of commission of rape and penetrative sexual assault upon a minor victim girl of 17 years of age, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence if released on bail. It is next submitted that in her statement recorded under Section 183 of B.N.S.S., 2023, the victim has supported the case of the prosecution. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner ought not be released on bail at this stage.

Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner as well as his chance of absconding and tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioner be released on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected at this stage.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated- 12.03.2026-Animesh/