( 2025:JHHC:37489 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 10066 of 2025 ------ Ansarul Haque, aged about 22 years, son of Muslim Miyan, resident of Village-Kamta, P.O. & P.S.-Tandwa, Dist.-Chatra, State-Jharkhand … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Ms. Anshu Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, Addl. P.P. For the Informant : Ms. Shabana Perween, Advocate : Mr. Vishal Kr. Gupta, Advocate ------ Order No.03 Dated- 12.12.2025 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with POCSO Case No. 09 of 2025 arising out of Tandwa P.S. Case No.343 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under sections 64 of the B.N.S. and under Section 4/12 of POCSO Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is the second journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail and earlier the prayer for regular bail was dismissed as withdrawn. It is further submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner committed penetrative sexual assault upon the minor victim girl and during the trial, minor victim girl has been examined and she has supported the case of the prosecution and vividly described the act of the petitioner in commission of the offence. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 13.12.2024, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 18 of the bail application. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. The learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the informant on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that in view of the overwhelming evidence which has already come against him during the trial, in which so far five witnesses have been examined as well as keeping in view the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, there is every change of the petitioner absconding and 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 as well as the evidence which has come during the trial implicating 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 at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the abovenamed petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 12.12.2025 Sonu/Gunjan-