( 2026:JHHC:18399 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3321 of 2026 ------ Firoz Ray @ Chand, aged about 26 years, Son of Raju Ray @ Imtiyaj, Resident of Village –Sons, P.O. & P.S. –Chanho, District –Ranchi, Jharkhand. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Umesh Kr. Choubey, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Mohua Palit, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.06 Dated- 23.06.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Special POCSO P.S. Case No.07 of 2025 arising out of Bhandra P.S. Case No. 73 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under sections 137(2)/96 of the B.N.S., 2023. This is the second journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail. Earlier the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 10.06.2025 in B.A. No. 3923 of 2025. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has kidnapped the minor victim girl for solemnizing marriage with her and committed penetrative sexual assault upon the minor victim girl. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is next submitted that so far three witnesses including the prosecutrix have been examined who have supported the case of the prosecution. It is then submitted that it transpires that both the petitioner and the victim were in love with each other, hence the victim went with the petitioner by flight from Ranchi Airport to Delhi Airport and then to Rajasthan but did not complain to anyone. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 31.12.2024, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 15 of the bail application. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that keeping in view the direct allegation against the petitioner of committing penetrative sexual assault upon the minor victim girl and in view of the overwhelming evidence that has already come on record through the witnesses examined by the trial court so far, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding, if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be admitted to bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the chance of the petitioner absconding if released on bail as also the evidence that has already come on record through the three witnesses examined by the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to admit the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected at this stage. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 23.06.2026 Sonu/