( 2026:JHHC:16478 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 4222 of 2026 Guljar Ansari son of Din Ali Ansari … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Miss X … … Opp. Parties --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Banka, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Fahad Alam, APP --- 02/09.06.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 21.01.2026 in connection with Mandar P.S. Case No. 03 of 2026, corresponding to Spl. POCSO Case No. 18 of 2026, for the offences registered under Sections 65(1) of the B.N.S. 2023 and section 4/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, pending in the court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, IV, Ranchi-cum-Spl. Judge, POCSO Act, Ranchi. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and except the statement of the victim in the FIR and her evidence recorded before the learned court, there is no corroborative material against the petitioner. He has also submitted that even the FSL report is awaited. He submits that out of 7 witnesses; 2 witnesses have already been examined. The learned counsel further submits that as per FIR, the victim was going to madarsa but the document in connection with her age has been obtained from another school namely Adarsh Gramin Public School Chanho, Ranchi which shows that she was minor on the date of occurrence. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the victim during the trial has supported the prosecution case. She was also studying in madarsa and was enrolled in the aforesaid school. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the direct allegation made against the petitioner and the ( 2026:JHHC:16478 ) 2 victim is minor, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected. 6. The State is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses be promptly produced before the court and the FSL Ranchi is also directed to ensure that the report of the sample be promptly sent to the concerned court as it appears to be important evidence in this case. 7. The State is directed to communicate this order to the FSL, Ranchi, Superintendent of Police of the concerned District and also to the Director, Prosecution. 8. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 09.06.2026 Uploaded on 10.06.2026 Binit/