2026:JHHC:19320 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 6065 of 2026 Bikram Singh @ Vikram Singh, Son of Niranjan Singh … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Apurv Krishna, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, Spl. P.P. --- 03/02.07.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 13.10.2024 in connection with Ketar P.S. Case No. 62 of 2024 corresponding to POCSO Case No. 122 of 2024, registered under Sections 65(1), 74, 75(3) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, sections 4 & 6 of POCSO Act and section 67(A) and 67(B) of Information Technology Act, now pending in the court of learned Special Judge, POCSO Court, Garhwa. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that charge has been framed as back as on 12.02.2025 and there are eight charge- sheeted witnesses, but there is no progress in the trial. He further submits that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected earlier in B.A. No. 9388 of 2025 vide order dated 17.10.2025 and the co- accused namely, Raju Paswan has been enlarged on bail by co- ordinate Bench of this Court in B.A. No. 3291 of 2026 on the basis of evidences led in the split trial of other co-accused persons. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the case of Raju Paswan stands on different footing and so far as the petitioner is concerned, there is direct allegation of committing rape upon the victim. 5. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the fact that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected earlier on merits, who is alleged to have kidnapped the 2026:JHHC:19320 2 daughter of the informant aged 15 years and taken the victim to his house and there she was raped, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected. This Court finds that the case of the petitioner stands on different footing as that of Raju Paswan. 6. However, there can be no reason for non-production of witnesses and also FSL report, if any material has been sent for forensic examination , before the learned court by the State. 7. The State is directed to ensure that the witnesses are promptly produced before the learned court. 8. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district and Director, prosecution 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:02.07.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:03.07.2026