2026:JHHC:3225 --1-- A.B.A. No. 6936 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI A.B.A. No. 6936 of 2025 ---- Father Mankunwar Toppo @ Father Mankuwar Toppo, aged about 35 years, son of Lodheshar Toppo, resident of village – Chatak Toli, PO and PS – Kolebira, District – Simdega, Jharkhand, 835211 .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Peter Martin T.J., Advocate For the State :- Mr. Fahad Allam, Advocate ---- 03/06.02.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Latehar Mahila P.S. Case No.08 of 2025 for the alleged offences registered under Section 75 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 12 of POCSO Act pending in the Court of learned Special Judge – POCSO, Latehar. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner is teaching at St. Xavier’s Academy, Latehar for last two years. He further submits that one Suraj Kumar has left the school on his own volition and in view of that the students were protesting and for that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He then submits that on information of CWC, Latehar the FIR has been registered and the parents or the victims have not lodged the FIR. He next submits that information was received from the CWC, Latehar and thereafter the Officer In-charge 2026:JHHC:3225 --2-- A.B.A. No. 6936 of 2025 of Mahila Police Station has lodged the FIR. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer and submits that the girls have been examined in the case diary starting from Page No.8 and six girls have been examined, who are aged about 13 to 14 years and they have supported the prosecution case. 5. Looking into the contents of the FIR it transpires that serious allegation is made against the petitioner, who happened to be teacher of said school of inappropriately touching bodies of the girl child aged about 14 years and six girls’ child name has also been disclosed in the FIR. Girls child have been examined under Section 180 of BNSS and their statement is part of the case diary and they are aged about 13 to 14 years respectively and all have supported the prosecution case and even the parents of victim girls have stated that they have been informed by the children about the said incident. The petitioner is teacher and serious allegation is there against the petitioner of touching the body of minor girls inappropriately. 6. In the attending facts and circumstances of this case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 06.02.2026 Sangam/