( 2026:JHHC:20282 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5931 of 2026 Samrat Mandal @ Bishal Mandal, aged about 20 years, S/o Dilip Mandal, R/o Village- Brindabanpur, PO- Saturi, PS- Saturi, District- Purulia (West Bengal). … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand. … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Avishek Chandra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, APP --- 06/09.07.2026. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 17.12.2025 in connection with Fatherpur P.S. Case No.47 of 2025 (corresponding to Special POCSO Case No.04 of 2026) for the offence registered under Section 96 of the B.N.S. 2023 and the case is pending in the court of learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Jamtara. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and as per the FIR, the entire details of the petitioner has been mentioned by the father of the victim and the victim was found missing from the home on 10.12.2025 and the FIR was lodged on 13.12.2025. 4. He further submits that the petitioner and the victim knew each other from before and the victim has already deposed before the learned court below as PW.1 and she has stated that she went to Asansol by herself as the petitioner had called her. Petitioner is 20 years old and it is not in dispute that the victim was minor, aged 16 years at the time occurrence. 5. The learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the victim has supported the case as the petitioner had kidnapped the victim and established physical relationship with her. 6. To this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no medical evidence of the alleged offence. ( 2026:JHHC:20282 ) 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon considering the statement of the victim/ girl recorded under Section 183 BNSS, 2023 and also considering the evidence of the victim produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner during course of argument, this court finds that there is allegation that petitioner had kidnapped the victim and forcibly committed rape upon the victim aged 16 years and the victim has supported the prosecution case. As such, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected. 8. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 09.07.2026. Uploaded 11.07.2026 sandeep/-