Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 10491 (JHR)

VINAY KUMAR SAW v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./11690/2025 · 2026-02-05

Gautam Kumar Choudhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:3106 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 11690 of 2025 ------ Vinay Kumar Saw, son of Baleshwar Saw, resident of village Deo Nagra, Pandra, P.O. and P.S. Pandra, District Ranchi, Jharkhand .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opp. Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, A.P.P. ------ Order No.03 / Dated : 05.02.2026 Bail petition filed on behalf of the petitioner- Vinay Kumar Saw, who is in custody since 02.06.2025 in connection with Ratu P.S. Case No. 206 of 2025 corresponding to POCSO Case No. 122 of 2025 for the offences registered under Section 70(2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 6 of POCSO Act pending in the Court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner IV-cum- Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ranchi is pressed into motion. As per the FIR, the victim girl was on her way to Delhi and for that she has reached Hatia railway station where she was dropped by her uncle and railway ticket was purchased by him. Thereafter, her uncle returned, but her mother asked not to proceed Delhi and called her back. When she boarded tempo to return home, she was taken by the driver to a desolate place and rape was committed by him and his another accomplice. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that he is not named in the FIR and also in her statement under Section 183 of the BNSS and medical evidence is also not supporting the prosecution case. Learned A.P.P. opposed the bail petition. It is submitted that the petitioner was unknown to the victim, therefore, he had not been named in the FIR. However, the factum of incidence has been supported in her statement under Section 183 of the BNSS and the accused persons were put on TIP and they were identified by the victim girl. Under the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit Uploaded 06.02.2026