2026:JHHC:17535 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3626 of 2026 Etwa Oraon @ Amit Oraon, son of Bigu Oraon … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, APP --- 04/17.06.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with S.T. Case No. 50 of 2008 arising out of Gumla P.S. Case No. 224 of 2007, registered under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, now pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-Cum- Special Judge, Gumla. 3. The case is arising out of Gumla P.S. Case No. 224 of 2007 for offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was granted bail in the year, 2008 and thereafter, he was absconding. However, he is in custody since 22.11.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the petitioner has remained absconder and he was declared permanent absconder on 02.12.2013 and thereafter, on the basis of permanent warrant of arrest issued against him, he was arrested and produced by the police on 22.11.2025. 5. The learned counsel for the State further submits that while the petitioner remained absconder, he committed another offence which was numbered as Doranda P.S. Case No. 211 of 2018 registered under section 376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code read with section 4/6 of POCSO Act and in that case, the petitioner was in judicial custody from 08.09.2018 to 22.04.2024. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been released on bail in the said case and thereafter, he 2026:JHHC:17535 2 has been remanded in the present case. 6. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the fact that the petitioner remained absconder for a longtime, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected. 7. However, the State is directed to ensure that all steps should be taken to ensure that the witnesses are produced in the court. 8. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution and also to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance. 9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:17.06.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:18.06.2026