Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 161 (JHR)

SURENDRA NAGESIYA ALIAS SURENDRA NAGESIYA ALIAS SURENDAR NAGESIA v. STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./254/2026 · 2026-02-20

Deepak Roshan

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:5251 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 254 of 2026 --- 1. Surendra Nagesiya @ Sulendra Nagesia @ Sulendra Nagesia aged about 18 years son of Bahura Nagesiya 2. Sanju Ram aged about 18 years son of Chaman Ram Both resident of village-Bukagara Sursang, P.S. Raidih, P.O. Sursang, District-Gumla ....Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand ....Opposite party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P --- 02/20.02.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P for the State. 2. The Petitioners have approached this Court for grant of regular bail in connection with Sursang P.S. Case No. 04/2025, registered for the offence under Sections 70(2)/138 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4/6 of POCSO Act, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-IV-Cum- Exclusive Special Judge POCSO Court, Gumla. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case and have committed no offence as alleged in the F.I.R. He further submits that the petitioners have got no criminal antecedent and they are in custody since 11.05.2025; as such, the petitioners may be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned A.P.P opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioners and submits that there are specific allegations against the petitioners. 5. Having regard to the gravity of the offence and the allegations made against these petitioners, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail, at this stage. Accordingly, their prayer for bail is rejected. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 20th February, 2026 jk Uploaded on 24/02/2026