( 2025:JHHC:12933 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3181 of 2025 ------ Adil Khan @ Adil, aged about 23 years, son of Haleem Khan, resident of Bhadodih, Ward No. 17, P.O. and P.S. - Telaiya, District –Koderma (Jharkhand) … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Sahil, Advocate : Mr. Avilash Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Snehlika Bhagat, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 29.04.2025 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Telaiya P.S. Case No.104 of 2024 arising out of Special POCSO Case No. 37 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under section 366A of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 12 of the POCSO Act whereby cognizance has been taken under Section 363/366/376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 06 of the POCSO Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has procured the minor victim girl and committed rape upon her and also caused aggravated sexual assault upon her. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is then submitted that though in her deposition the victim as P.W.1 has supported the case of the prosecution but in her cross-examination, she identified the photographs, which goes to show that she was going to several restaurants with the petitioner. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 04.09.2024, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 13 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 overwhelming evidence against the petitioner, as the victim herself has supported the case of the prosecution, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be admitted to bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the chance of his absconding, if released on bail, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioner be admitted to bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioners is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu-Gunjan/