Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 14346 (JHR)

JULKA ANSARI v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./10339/2025 · 2026-02-16

Anil Kumar Choudhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:JHHC:4274] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.10339 of 2025 ------ Julkar Ansari, aged about 37 years, son of Khajmuddin Miyan, resident village- Kolhabadar P.O. Kolhabadar, P.S. Shikaripada, District- Dumka .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate For the State : Ms. Sushma Aind, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.03 Dated- 16-02-2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Dumka (M) P.S. Case No.99 of 2025 registered under Section 96 of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed penetrative sexual assault upon a minor victim girl. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is further submitted that the charge has already been framed in this case. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 26.06.2025. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that considering the serios nature of allegation against the petitioner of committing penetrative sexual assault upon the minor victim girl, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence if released on bail. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner ought not be released on bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of committing penetrative sexual assault upon the minor victim girl as well as his chance of absconding and tampering with the evidence, 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 rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated- 16.02.2026-Animesh/