2026:JHHC:8956 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 2241 of 2026 ---- Anish Tirkey son of Umesh Uranv @ Umesh Tirkey, resident of Village Darha, PO Tarha, PS Sadar, District Chatra. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate For the State : Ms. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P. ---- 03/26.03.2026 By way of this bail application filed under Sections 483 & 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 petitioner has prays for grant of bail as he is in custody for allegedly committing offence punishable under Section 70 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (Charge framed under Section 70 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act) in connection with Sadar (Chatra) Police Station Case No.256 of 2024 corresponding to POCSO Case No.48 of 2024, pending in the Court of the District & Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Chatra. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. appearing for the State had argued their respective cases at length. 3. The First Information Report being Sadar (Chatra) Police Station Case No.256 of 2024 was registered on the basis of the written report given by the informant, mother of the victim. It has been alleged that when the on 21.07.2024 when the victim along with her younger brother had gone to the nearby blue berry tree, the petitioner and other co-accused persons came there and gazed and dragged her to nearby bushes and committed gang rape upon her one by one. The accused persons also threatened the victim not to disclose to her mother or to anyone else, lest, she and her brother would be killed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to village politics. He submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence. He also contends 2026:JHHC:8956 -: 2 :- that P.W.1, who is the victim, herself, and P.W.2, who is the mother of the victim, have not supported the case of the prosecution. He further refers to the deposition of P.W.1, the victim and submits that parties have compromised the dispute and agreement has been signed, which was marked as Exhibit ‘D-1’. In view of the aforesaid facts, he contends that the case is absolutely false and the petitioner is liable to be released on bail. 5. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner. 7. I have also gone through the impugned order passed by the Trial Court and the other documents available with the records of this case. 8. Petitioner is named in the First Information Report with a direct allegation of committing rape upon the victim. Statement of the victim was also recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. She stated that Akash Kerketta, Vicky Yadav and Anish Tirkey (petitioner – though the name has been wrongly typed as Manish Tirkey) had forcibly taken her and had committed wrong with her while taking her inside the bushes. 9. Thus, from the aforesaid statement, the allegation is direct against this petitioner. Petitioner now tries to take shelter of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. This Court cannot give any benefit of the aforesaid evidence at this stage as because the girl is minor aged about 14 years and there is no concept of entering into compromise in heinous offences under Section 70 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The compromise petition, in these types of cases, wherein victim has supported the allegation in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, prima facie suggests tampering of evidence. Exhibit ‘D-1’, which is an alleged compromise petition, cannot be looked into as prima facie that is an illegal document. Further, the victim had clearly stated that she had given statement under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and she accepted her statement and the signature as also had identified the petitioner in Court. She, in her evidence had also accepted the factum of rape. 10. In view of above clear statement, the alleged compromise petition, prima facie, is nothing but an attempt by the petitioner to tamper with the evidence. The Trial Court should be very cautious about these attempts. This clearly suggests that the petitioner does not deserve bail, rather this is a case of custodial trial also. 11. Considering the aforesaid, I am not inclined to grant bail to the 2026:JHHC:8956 -: 3 :- petitioner. Prayer for bail of the petitioner in connection with Sadar (Chatra) Police Station Case No.256 of 2024 corresponding to POCSO Case No.48 of 2024; pending in the Court of the District & Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge (POCSO), Chatra is hereby rejected. 12. This bail application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ananda Sen, J.) Ranchi Dated 26th March, 2026 Kumar/Cp-03 Uploaded on 30th March, 2026