2026:JHHC:18277 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5329 of 2026 Gurudayal Munda aged about 19 years, son of Gambhir Singh Munda, Resident of Village-Dungirdih, P.O. Lungtu, P.S. Tamar, District Ranchi. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, Addl.P.P. --- 02/23.06.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 23.09.2025 in connection with Kuchai P.S. Case No. 43 of 2025 corresponding to POCSO Case No. 28 of 2025 for the offences registered under Sections 96, 137(2) of the B.N.S. 2023, pending in the court of learned Principal District & Sessions Judge cum Special Judge (POCSO Act), Seraikella. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the though the victim is 14 years of age but in her statement recorded under section 183 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 she has stated that she willfully went with the petitioner who is 19 years of old and stayed in Haryana. The learned counsel submits that no allegation of sexual offence has been mentioned in the statement recorded under section 183 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The petitioner is in custody since 23.09.2025. As per the impugned order there are 11 charge sheeted witnesses and victim has been examined as P.W.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 2 more witnesses have also been examined. 4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the impugned order itself reveals that the victim made allegation in her deposition that she was enticed by the petitioner and taken to Ambala where the petitioner repeatedly made physical 2026:JHHC:18277 2 relationship with her on several occasions. He submits that the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and it appears from the impugned order itself that the victim has made direct allegation of rape against the petitioner and trial is in progress, 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. However, the State is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses are promptly produced before the learned trial court. 7. 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. 8. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 23.06.2026 Uploaded on: 25.06.2026 MM