( 2025:JHHC:16186 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.4843 of 2025 ------ Rajesh Thakur @ Rajesh Sharma, son of Gango Thakur, aged about 41 years, resident of village-Jolhabad, P.O.-Rajdhanwar, P.S.- Dhanwar, District-Giridih. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Prabhat Kr. Sinha, Advocate : Ms. Manisha Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Fahad Allam, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated- 19-06-2025 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Dhanwar P.S. Case No.06 of 2025 corresponding to POCSO Case No.25 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 65(1), 62, 318(4), 61(2) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 8 of POCSO Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed rape upon the minor victim girl under 16 years of age and caused sexual assault upon her. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that there is a delay of 17 days in lodging the FIR and because of ulterior motive, this false case has been instituted. It is also submitted that the petitioner undertakes that he will co-operate with the trial of the case. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 11.01.2025 as is evident from para-19 of the instant bail application. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that in her statement under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S., the victim has categorically stated about the acts of the petitioner which amounts to commission of the offences punishable under Section 65(1)/62 of the B.N.S. as well as Section 8/12 of the POCSO Act; there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not be released on bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner as well as the chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail, this Court is not inclined to admit the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Abhiraj/