2026:JHHC:20679 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 6404 of 2026 Vikash Kumar Mahto, aged about 21 years, son of Krishna Mahto … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr.Pratik Sen, Advocate For the State : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, APP --- 02/13.07.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since15.11.2024 in connection with Special POCSO Case No. 01 of 2025 arising out of Rajrappa P.S. Case No. 172 of 2024 for the offences registered under Sections 354(C), 354 (D) (1) (ii), 376 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Special Judge POCSO, Ramgarh. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that initial date of the alleged offence as per the FIR is five years prior to lodging of the FIR. He has submitted that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected on merits in B.A. No. 6906 of 2025 vide order dated 04.09.2025. He further submits that the victim has been examined as P.W. 4 and in paragraph 65 she has said that she was staying in a rented house for six days during which the petitioner used to provide her food. 4. Upon a query of this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that out of 7 charge-sheet witnesses, 4 have already been examined. The I.O, the Doctor and the one formal witnesses are yet to be examined. The next date fixed before the learned trial court is on 30.07.2026. 5. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the victim is not hostile and rather she has supported the prosecution case and the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail. 2026:JHHC:20679 2 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected on merits earlier on 04.09.2025 in B.A. No. 6906 of 2025 and there is direct allegation against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail stands rejected. 7. However, the State is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses be promptly produced before the learned trial court and the FSL report, if any, be also forwarded to the concerned court at the earliest. 8. Learned counsel for the State is also directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution and also to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance. 9. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 13.07.2026 Uploaded on 13.07.2026 Pramanik/