2026:JHHC:19882 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 4359 of 2026 Gurvinder Singh @ Prince @ Guvinder Singh, Son of Narendra Singh … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Lalan Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, APP For the Informant : Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, Advocate --- 06/07.07.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 15.10.2025 in connection with Special POCSO Case No. 80 of 2025 arising out of Telco P.S. Case No. 101 of 2025, registered under Sections 64(2), 79, 75, 78, 333 and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and sections 6/10/12 of the POCSO Act, now pending in the court of learned Special Judge, POCSO, Jamshedpur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the First Information Report lodged in the year 2025, the 1st incident of rape is of February, 2022 and no specific date has been mentioned nor any place has been mentioned. He has submitted that it is further alleged in the FIR that thereafter on 29.08.2025, the petitioner forcibly entered into the house of the victim and tried to commit rape, but could not succeed and then, the petitioner again approached the house of the victim on 12.10.2025 and tried to forcibly enter into the house of the victim. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter submits that there is no explanation for not filing any FIR way back in the year, 2022 and the said year has been mentioned only to ensure that POCSO Act is attracted. He submits that the victim was major on the date of filing of First Information Report. 5. Learned counsel for the informant, while opposing the prayer 2026:JHHC:19882 2 for bail, has submitted that the victim was minor even on the date of institution of First Information Report. He submits that the trial is going on and out of 8 charge-sheeted witnesses, 4 witnesses have already been examined. He also submits that the victim has already been examined and she has supported the prosecution case. 6. To this, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 15.10.2025. 7. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the fact that there is direct allegation against the petitioner and the trial is going on, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected. 8. However, the State is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses are promptly produced. 9. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of police of the concerned district and also to the Director, Prosecution to ensure compliance. 10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:07.07.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:08.07.2026