2025:JHHC:17793 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.1528 of 2025 ------ 1.Suvendu Mandal, son of Bablu Mandal, resident of Chitorpur, Old Malda, PO and PS Malda, District Malda, West Bengal 2.Somnath Sharma, son of Jitendra Sharma, resident of Station Road, Chitorpur, Old Malda, PO and PS Malda, District Malda, West Bengal 3.Santanu Mandal, son of Bablu Mandal, resident of Chitorpur, PO and PS Malda, District Malda, West Bengal 4.Avishek Dutta, son of Amaresh Dutta, resident of Tel Mundi Road, Old Malda, PO and PS Malda, District Malda, West Bengal … … Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Jharkhand. … … Opposite Party(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) :Mr. Shubhashis Rasik Soren, Advocate. Ms. Shobha Gloria Lakra, Advocate Ms. Mrinalini Adela Tete, Advocate Ms. Preeti Hembrom, Advocate Ms. Singi Sharon Demta, Advocate For the State :Mr. V.S. Sahay, A.P.P. ----- 04/ 03.07.2025 Heard the parties. 2. This anticipatory bail application under Sections 482 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been preferred by the petitioners apprehending their arrest for offences registered under Sections 127(2), 74, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (old U/s 342, 354, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code) and section 12 of POCSO Act pending in the court of A.J.C-IV cum Spl. Judge, POCSO, Ranchi in connection with Nagri PS Case No. 213 of 2024. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the photographs annexed with the charge sheet clearly shows that there was some relationship between the petitioners and the victim. He submits that the Institute has debarred the informant from sitting in the examination that is reason this false case has been lodged. 4. Learned A.P.P. representing the State opposes the prayer 2025:JHHC:17793 2 for anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard the parties and have gone through the statement of the victim girl recorded under section 164 of Cr.PC. The same has been provided by the learned counsel for the petitioners, copy of the same is kept on record. After going through the statement of the victim, I find that the girl is only of 14 years, she is minor. There is an allegation against these petitioners of committing sexual assault on a 14 years old girl, this Court finds it not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 6. Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail Application stands dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Tanuj/Cp-3