[2025:JHHC:19615] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.6002 of 2025 ------ Md. Javed @ Md. Jawed, aged about 21 years, son of Md. Faruk, Resident of Village Roshanpur, P.O. Roshanpur, P.S. Pirpainti, District- Bhagalpur, State- Bihar. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated-17-07-2025 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Thakurgangti P.S. Case No.06 of 2025 (Special POCSO Case No.45 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Section 96 of the B.N.S., 2023. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon the minor victim girl after procuring her for marriage. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is then submitted that the victim girl in her statement under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S., 2023, has stated her age to be 15 years and has further stated that she went with the petitioner to Delhi and the petitioner put vermilion on her head by saying that by such ritual, he has married the victim. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 18.03.2025 as is evident from para-19 of the instant bail application. It is lastly 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 on the other hand opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that keeping in view the direct allegation of serious nature of committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon the minor victim girl by the petitioner which has been found to be true during the investigation of the case, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence, if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be released on bail. Considering the serious nature of direct allegation against the petitioner and the chance of his absconding and tampering with the evidence, if released on bail, this Court is not inclined to admit the abovenamed petitioner to bail at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above named petitioner is rejected at this stage. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Saroj/