( 2026:JHHC:19109 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 2854 of 2026 Bilendar Kumar Yadav @ Bilendar Kumar Yadav son of Raj Kumar Yadav … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Spl. PP. --- 10/30.06.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 323 of 2025, for the offences registered under Sections 75(1), 319(2), 351(3), 79, 3(5) of the B.N.S. 2023 and section 12/14 of POCSO Act, pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge, at Ramgarh. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charge sheet has been submitted in this case and the petitioner never met the victim at any point of time. As per the allegation, in the year 2024, the petitioner had sent a friend request through Instagram by concealing his name and stating to be Rishi Mishra and obtained objectionable videos of the victim which was sent to Sarfaraz Khan and Sarfaraz Khan in turn made the video viral through WhatsApp. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charge has already been framed, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the date of birth of the victim is 18.04.2012 and as per the FIR, the friend request was sent in the month of November-December, 2024 meaning thereby she was slightly more than 12 ½ years. He submits that during investigation it has come that the petitioner had obtained the nude photograph of the victim and send it to Sarfaraz who made the video viral. As per the impugned order itself, it is kept in a pen drive. 5. To this, the learned counsel for the petitioner in response has submitted that the nude photographs was sent by the victim herself. 2 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the aforesaid serious allegation made against the petitioner, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected. 7. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 30.06.2026 Uploaded on: 01.07.2026 Binit/