[2026:JHHC:7344] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. no. 2097 of 2026 Chaitan Murmu, aged about 48 years, son of Punkhi Mrumu, resident of village- Bhuli, P.O. & P.S.- Nala, Dist.- Jamtara … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Jayant Kr. Pandey, Adv. For the State : Mr. Subodh Kr. Dubey , Addl. PP 02 / 17.03.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Nala P. S. case no. 15 of 2025 instituted under Section 64 (1) of BNS, 2023 and Section 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and subsequently, the cognizance has been under Section 64 (2) (k) (m) of the BNS and Section 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this is the second journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail as his earlier bail application was rejected vide order dated 22.09.2025 passed in B.A. No. 6675 of 2025. It is next submitted that the fresh ground for admitting the petitioner on regular bail is that the petitioner wants to enter into compromise with the victim and to marry her. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in jail custody since 24.03.2025, as mentioned in para 11 of this bail application. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the trial of the case hence, the petitioner be admitted to regular bail. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the offence punishable under Section 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, are not compoundable offence, hence, sole fresh ground to allow the prayer of the petitioner for regular bail has no legs to stand and in view of serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of committing penetrative sexual assault upon the minor victim girl, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding as well as tampering with evidence, if released on bail. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not be released on bail at this stage. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of committing penetrative sexual assault upon the minor victim girl as well as the chance of his tampering with the evidence and 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 released on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is again rejected for the same reasons as mentioned in the order dated 22.09.2025 passed in B.A. No. 6675 of 2025. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Dated 17.03.2026 Smita/-