2026:JHHC:18230 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5229 of 2026 Rohit Kumar @ Rohit Kumar Chandravanshi @ Golden, Son of Satyendar Ram … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, Advocate --- 05/22nd June 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Majhianv P.S. Case No. 36/2025 corresonding to POCSO Case No. 57/2025 for the offence registered under Section 137(2)/87 of BNS, but the cognizance has been taken and charge has been framed under Sections 64(1)/64(2)(m)/137(2)/87 of BNS and Section 4/6 of the POCSO Act, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Special Judge, POCSO Act-cum-Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-FTC (Crime Against Woman), Garhwa. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner is in custody since 29.03.2025. The learned counsel submits that the bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected on merits vide order dated 28.08.2025 in B.A. No. 4310 of 2025. The learned counsel submits that the victim, though aged 17 years, has been ultimately recovered and the petitioner is also of tendered age and there was love relationship between them. He has further submitted that the charge has been framed on 18.06.2025 and out of six witnesses, three witnesses have been examined including the victim, but the cross-examination of the victim would reveal that she has not supported the prosecution case fully. 2026:JHHC:18230 2 3. Learned counsel for the opposite party has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the trial is going on and the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the bail application of the petitioner has been rejected earlier on merits and out of six witnesses, three have already been examined and that the trial is going on, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is hereby rejected. 5. However, the State is directed to ensure prompt production of the remaining witnesses before the learned court. 6. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Director, Prosecution as well as Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance. 7. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 22.06.2026 Uploaded On: 25.06.2026 Mukul/-