( 2026:JHHC:19671 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 6158 of 2026 Gul Chand Das @ Gul Chand Ram Das son of late Huro Das … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Senior Advocate : Ms. Supriya Dayal, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, A.P.P. --- 02/06.07.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 29.01.2026 in connection with Karon P.S. Case No. 11 of 2023, for the offences registered under Section 376(D) (A) and 506 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, pending in the court of learned Special Judge, POCSO, Deoghar. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the case was lodged on 23.02.2023 against the petitioner. Earlier also the victim had lodged the case in Karra P.S. Case No. 60 of 2019 against the petitioner and other accused persons for alleged offence under Sections 147,323/149,504/149,506/149 IPC and the petitioner and others were acquitted and the victim was never examined before the court. The order of acquittal is dated 13.05.2026. After lodging of the earlier case, fresh case was lodged in the year 2023. The learned senior counsel submits that there is land dispute between the parties and the petitioner is 82 years of age. 4. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the instant case is lodged during the pendency of the earlier case in as much as earlier case was decided on 13.05.2026 and the present case was lodged on 23.02.2023. He has also submitted that process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr. P.C. were issued against the petitioner and there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner in the FIR itself. 2 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the specific and direct allegation made against the petitioner in the FIR which was lodged way back in the year 2023 during the pendency of the earlier case and the petitioner had been evading his arrest and process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr, P.C. were issued 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. 6. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 06.07.2026 Uploaded on 08.07.2026 Binit/