[2025:JHHC:11556] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.3019 of 2025 ------ Amit Mandal, aged about 20 years, Son of Subodh Mandal, resident of Kathalbari, P.O. & P.S.- Radhanagar, District- Sahibganj. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Naveen Kr. Gaunjhu, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated-16-04-2025 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Radhanagar P.S. Case No.145 of 2024 corresponding to POCSO Case No.17 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 127(2)/126(2)/64(2)/ 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Sections 4/6 of POCSO Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner committed rape upon the minor victim girl and also committed penetrative sexual intercourse with her. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is also submitted that there is departure from the FIR, in the deposition of the witnesses examined in this case; as the witnesses have not stated about two other boys at the time of taking of the victim by the petitioner. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 28.11.2024 and he has no criminal antecedent; as mentioned in para-18 of the instant bail application. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the victim and the informant have already been examined in the trial of the case and they has supported the case of the prosecution and they have categorically stated about the commission of penetrative sexual intercourse upon the minor victim girl by the petitioner. It is next submitted that there is every chance of the petitioner absconding, if released on bail. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner ought not to be released on bail at this stage. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the abovenamed petitioner and chance of his absconding, if released on bail, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the abovenamed petitioner be released on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the abovenamed petitioner is rejected (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Saroj/