2026:JHHC:15086 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3475 of 2026 Maheshwar Mahato @ Mahesar Mahato, Son of Sripati Mahato … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, Advocate --- 04/15th May 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Jamtara P.S. Case No. 02/2026 for the offence registered under Sections 96, 64(2)(i) of BNS and Section 4 & 8 of POCSO Act, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Special Judge POCSO Act, Jamtara. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the date of occurrence i.e. 04.01.2026, the victim was 17 years 11 months of age and it has been alleged against the petitioner, who is 42 years of age, that he had enticed the victim and has committed sexual offence against the victim. The learned counsel submits that mere statement is not sufficient and the conduct of the victim is also required to be seen who has not fully cooperated with her medical examination and accordingly, no opinion could be given by the concerned doctor. The learned counsel submits that the charge has been framed. 3. Learned counsel for the opposite party has opposed the prayer and has submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner. 4. The perusal of the case-diary reveals that the witnesses have supported the prosecution case and it has also been stated by the witnesses that prior to 04.01.2026, the petitioner has been exploiting the victim and 2026:JHHC:15086 2 the villagers had also warned the petitioner, but in spite of that on 04.01.2026, the petitioner had taken away the victim. 5. In view of the statement of the independent witnesses recorded in the case-diary and the fact that the victim has also supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is rejected. 6. At this, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that appropriate observation may be made, so that the trial is expedited. 7. The State is directed to ensure prompt production of the witnesses during trial. 8. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Director, Prosecution as well as Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance. 9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 15.05.2026 Uploaded On: 15.05.2026 Mukul/-