( 2025:JHHC:14002 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3524 of 2025 Sonu Ravidas @ Sonu Kumar Das @ Sunny Ravidas @ Sunny, aged about 24 years, Son of Yogendra Ravidas, Resident of Village- Mandaikhurd, P.O.-Reformatory School, Hazaribag, P.S.-Lohsinghna, District- Hazaribag, Jharkhand … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Victim … Opposite Parties ---------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwari, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Amrita Kumari, A.P.P. For the Victim : Mr. Manoj Kr. Choubey, Advocate --------- Order No.03/ Dated 9th May, 2025 1. Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner has been made accused in connection with Lohsinghna P.S. Case No. 87 of 2024 for the offences registered under Sections 376/506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4 & 8 of the POCSO Act, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III-Cum Special Judge, POCSO Act, Hazaribag. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on earlier occasion, bail of the present petitioner has already been rejected in B.A. No. 6386 of 2024 vide order dated 06.09.2024, but thereafter, victim got examined before trial court who has not supported the case of prosecution. 4. In support of aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court towards the photocopy of the certified copy of deposition of victim available on record. 5. This Court, on the last date of hearing, called for status report in the present case. After perusing the status report available on record, it ( 2025:JHHC:14002 ) 2. transpires that out of six prosecution witnesses, the victim has been examined and she has not supported the case of prosecution. It is said that petitioner is in judicial custody since 24.04.2024. 6. Learned counsel for the victim is also present who also conceded to the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. Learned A.P.P. for the State made objection on the premise that yet witnesses has to be examined before trial court. She also pointed out that scientific evidence indicates culpability of the petitioner in the present case. 8. Considering the fact that victim has been examined before trial court after rejection of prayer of bail in B.A. No. 6386 of 2024 and she has not supported the case of prosecution and the petitioner is in judicial custody since 24.04.2024, this Court do find that this is a fresh ground to reconsider the prayer of bail of this petitioner. 9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned of Additional Sessions Judge-III-Cum Special Judge, POCSO Act, Hazaribag in connection with Lohsinghna P.S. Case No. 87 of 2024, subject to the condition that petitioner shall present before trial court on each and every date of hearing, except medical exigency. (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) R.K./Suman