Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 13 (JHR)

DINESH TIRKEY ALIAS NITIN v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./1075/2026 · 2026-03-09

Anubha Rawat Choudhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:6176 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 1075 of 2026 Dinesh Tirkey @ Nitin, aged about 18 year, S/o Budhdev Oraon, R/o Village – Keradanr, P.O. & P.S. – Sursang, District – Gumla (Jharkhand) … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Ms. Vandana Bharti, Advocate --- 03/09.03.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 11.05.2025 in connection with Sursang P.S. Case No.04 of 2025, corresponding to POCSO Case No.31 of 2025, registered under Sections 70(2), 138 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 and under Section 4, 6 of POCSO Act, now pending in the court of learned Exclusive Special Judge POCSO Court cum Additional Sessions Judge – IV, Gumla. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 11.05.2025 in a case of gang rape and after investigation, the charge has already been framed. He has submitted that the father of the victim has lodged the F.I.R and given the name of the petitioner along with others and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. 4. The learned counsel for the opposite party has opposed the prayer and submitted that the allegations are very serious and there is direct allegation against the petitioner and the petitioner has also been identified. 2026:JHHC:6176 2 5. In response, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not put on TIP, but during their appearance in the court, the victim had identified. 6. Considering the serious nature of allegation and the petitioner being a named accused , this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 7. Accordingly, this bail application is hereby rejected. 8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:09.03.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:10.03.2026