2026:JHHC:18968 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5879 of 2026 Arun Kumar Choudhary, son of Late Parmeshwar Choudhary @ Late Parmeshwar Pasi … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, Spl. P.P. --- 05/30.06.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Special POCSO Case No. 24 of 2025 arising out of Jainagar P.S. Case No. 95 of 2025, registered under Sections 77 and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and section 67(A) of Information Technology Act, later on sections 64(1)/69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita were added vide order dated 30.04.2025, now pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Koderma. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 28.04.2025 and he has renewed his prayer for bail on account of the fact that the victim has not been appearing to depose before the learned court as per the impugned order dated 26.02.2026 this is on account of advanced stage of pregnancy. The learned counsel has submitted that out of 10 charge- sheeted witnesses, only two witnesses have been examined so far and those witnesses have also not supported the prosecution case. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the impugned order is dated 26.02.2026 and at present, the victim might be in a position to depose. He submits that there are other witnesses also, who are to depose. 5. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the fact that there is direct allegation against the petitioner 2026:JHHC:18968 2 and the bail application of the petitioner was rejected on merits vide order dated 03.11.2025 in B.A. No. 8988 of 2025 and the trial is in progress, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected. 6. So far as the victim is concerned, as per the impugned order dated 26.02.2026 itself, the victim was at advanced stage of pregnancy and by now, she might be in a position to depose before the learned court. 7. The State is directed to ensure that the witnesses are also examined before the learned court. 8. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution and Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance. 9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:30.06.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:01.07.2026