( 2026:JHHC:19949 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5681 of 2026 Kumar Nishant @ Nishant Sir, aged about 40 years, son of Shiv lal Pandit, Resident of Village- Uparbandha (Pindra), P.O.- Mirzachowki, P.S.- Mirzachowki, District- Sahibganj. ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY For the Petitioner : Mr. Md. Razaullah Ansari, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. --- Order No. 02/ Dated: 7th July, 2026 Heard Mr. Md. Razaullah Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. 2. The petitioner had earlier moved for grant of bail in B.A. No. 848 of 2026 which however was dismissed as withdrawn on account of the fact that charge-sheet was submitted under the provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as well. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present bail application is maintainable, considering the fact that an offence under POCSO Act is also involved and the impugned order has been passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Sahibganj. 4. In support of such contention, reference has been made to the case of Sarfaraz Ahmad @ Sarfaraz Alam @ Sarfaraz Ansari vs. The State of Jharkhand in B.A. No. 7931 of 2020. The relevant part of the order under reference reads as follows:- “Further an appeal under Section 14 (A) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 will lie only when the orders granting or refusing bail to an accused is passed by the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court constituted under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 but in this case the order refusing bail has been passed by the Special Court constituted under the POCSO Act and not the Special Court under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.” 5. This bail application, therefore, is maintainable. ( 2026:JHHC:19949 ) 2 6. The petitioner is an accused in connection with POCSO Case No. 02 of 2026 arising out of Mirzachowki P.S. Case No. 79 of 2025. 7. It has been alleged that the petitioner and his father had sexually exploited the informant and other girls in the school. 8. Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the main allegation of sexually exploiting the girls is attributed to the father of the petitioner, namely, Shivlal Pandit, who has been granted bail in B.A. No. 4895 of 2026 albeit on the ground of his age. 9. Learned counsel further submits that so far as the petitioner is concerned, the allegations are vague and the petitioner is in custody since 27.10.2025. 10. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner. 11. Regard being had to the fact that the main allegation seems to have been levelled against the father of the petitioner, namely, Shivlal Pandit, the petitioner above named is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Sahibganj in connection with POCSO Case No. 02 of 2026 arising out of Mirzachowki P.S. Case No. 79 of 2025. 12. This application stands allowed. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 7th July, 2026 Vedanti/- Uploaded on 8th July, 2026