[2026:JHHC:17110 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3556 of 2026 Md.Nizam Ansari @ Md. Nezam Ansari aged about 26 years, son of Ibrahim Anari, resident of Village- Chotaki Kharagdiha, P.O. &P.S.- Bengabad, District-Giridih … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K.Sahani , Adv. For the State : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda , Addl. PP 03 / 12.06.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Bengabad P.S. Case No: 37 of 2025 corresponding to POCSO Case No: 54 of 2025 instituted under Section 96 and 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 8/12 of the POCSO Act. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this is the second journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail as his earlier bail application was rejected vide order dated 14.07.2025 passed in B.A. No. 5829 of 2025. It is next submitted that the fresh ground for admitting the petitioner to regular bail is that so far two witnesses have been examined who have supported the case of the prosecution. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in jail custody since 11.03.2025, as mentioned in para 1 of this bail application. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the trial of the case hence, the petitioner be admitted to regular bail. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that keeping in view the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the fact that the two prosecution witnesses have been examined who have supported the case of the prosecution making direct and specific allegation against the petitioner; there is every chance of the petitioner absconding as well as tampering with evidence, if released on bail. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not be released on bail at this stage. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner as well as the chance of his tampering with the evidence and absconding, if released on bail, 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 again rejected for the same reasons as mentioned in the order dated 14.07.2025 passed in B.A. No. 5829 of 2025. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Dated 12.06.2026 Smita/-