( 2025:JHHC:12255 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3301 of 2025 ------ XXXXX … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kr. Tiwari, Advocate : Ms. Deepmala, Advocate : Ms. Nidhi Rani, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 24.04.2025 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Chandankiyari P.S. Case No.112 of 2023 (Special POCSO Case No.64 of 2024) registered for the offences punishable under sections 376(3)/323/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4/6 of POCSO Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner committed aggravated sexual intercourse several times upon her own daughter, being the victim. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the petitioner tried to restrain the victim having affair with her boyfriend hence, this false case has been foisted. It is next submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in paragraph no.20 of the bail application. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 24.07.2024 as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 16 of the bail application. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that keeping in view the serious nature of allegation of committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon the victim, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and also tampering with evidence, if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not be admitted to bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the abovenamed petitioner be admitted to bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the abovenamed petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu-Gunjan/