2026:JHHC:18091 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5270 of 2026 Khemlal Mahto, son of Late Tejo Mahto … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Naveen Kumar Ganjhu, Advocate --- 03/22nd June 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with POCSO Case No. 18/2025 arising out of Bagodar P.S. Case No. 232/2024 for the offence registered under Section 64 (2) of BNS and Section 6 of POCSO Act, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Giridih. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected on merits vide order dated 04.04.2025 in B.A. No. 2649 of 2025. However, there was an observation that the learned trial court shall expedite the trial. He submits that after the order of rejection on 04.04.2025, no witness has been examined. 3. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that as per the impugned order dated 06.04.2026, seven out of nine witnesses have already been examined and only the doctor and the investigating officer are yet to be examined. He submits that there is direct and serious allegation against the petitioner, who was caught by the informant in naked condition inside his house with nine years old daughter of the informant and the victim reported that the petitioner has sexually assaulted her. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the direct allegation made against the petitioner and that the bail application 2026:JHHC:18091 2 of the petitioner was rejected earlier on merits and there is direct allegation against the petitioner , this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is hereby rejected. 5. However, there can be no reason for the State to produce the remaining witnesses before the learned court. 6. The State is directed to ensure prompt production of the remaining witnesses before the learned court. 7. 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. 8. 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/-