XXX vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - RAJNEESH VARDHAN — A.B.A./2246/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 76,109,BNS. Disposed: Contested--Rejected on 06th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: JHHC010120232026

Filing Number

A.B.A./7800/2026

Filing Date

10-Apr-2026

Registration No

A.B.A./2246/2026

Registration Date

24-Apr-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE ( 121 )

Sub-Category

SECTION 482 ( 4 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Decision Date

06-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Rejected

Last updated 04-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 76,109,BNS

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.XXX

    Adv. SHAILENDRA JIT

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - RAJNEESH VARDHAN

  2. 2.VICTIM

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar DwivediView PDF

    Case Summary: A.B.A. No. 2246/2026 The High Court of Jharkhand rejected the petitioner's anticipatory bail plea in a case involving allegations of outraging modesty under Sections 76 and 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Although the petitioner's counsel argued false implication and family dispute, the court found direct allegations in the FIR and declined to grant anticipatory bail protection. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-May-2026

    Fresh Filing (Admission)

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

  4. 10-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. A.B.A./2246/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: A.B.A. No. 2246/2026 The High Court of Jharkhand rejected the petitioner's anticipatory bail plea in a case involving allegations of outraging modesty under Sections 76 and 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Although the petitioner's counsel argued false implication and family dispute, the court found direct allegations in the FIR and declined to grant anticipatory bail protection. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case