Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 10464 (JHR)

RAJU KUMAR MAHTO v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./3022/2025 · 2025-08-08

Rajesh Kumar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:JHHC:22609 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.3022 of 2025 ---- Raju Kumar Mahto, aged about 21 years, S/o – Mahabir Mahto @ Budhan Mahto, R/o – Village-Badro, P.O.-Sobranpur, P.S.-Khukhara, Dist.-Giridih, Jharkhand. …. …. Petitioner(s)/Applicant(s) Versus The State of Jharkhand …. …. Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Petitioner(s)/Applicant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar No.2, Adv. Mr. Soumitra Baroi, Adv. For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, A.P.P. ---- 05/Dated: 08th August, 2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the State. 2. The applicant who is in custody since 21.07.2023 has approached this Court for grant of regular bail in connection with POCSO Case No.119 of 2023 arising out of Khukhra P.S. Case No.13 of 2023, registered for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act and charges framed u/s 376(3) of the IPC and u/s 4(2), 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act, pending in the court of learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Giridih. 3. Earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioner had been rejected by this Court vide order dated 31.08.2024 passed in B.A. No.3861 of 2024. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant(s) that complete set of FIR along with its enclosure have been annexed with this bail application and there is no suppression on his/her part. 5. Innocence has been claimed by the learned counsel for the applicant and undertaking has been given for participation in the trial. On the above basis, prayer for bail has been made. 6. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail. 7. A report had been called for from the learned counsel for the State and it has been submitted that all the witnesses have already been examined and the prosecution has closed. 8. Considering the fact that all the witnesses have already been examined, I am not inclined to re-consider the prayer for bail of the applicant. Accordingly, the present bail application stands rejected. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Amar/- Uploaded