[2026:JHHC:20486] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.5821 of 2026 ------ Sahid Afridi @ Afridi @ Shahid Afridi aged about 26 years son of Late Md. Iqbal, resident of village- Oraonsai Maulanagar, P.O. & P.S. Jagannathpur, District- Singhbhum (West) .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vijoy Kr. Sinha, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated-10-07-2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Jagannathpur P.S. Case No.65 of 2025 corresponding to Special (POCSO) Case No.03 of 2026 registered under Section 65 (1)/62 of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 8 of the POCSO Act. This is the second journey of the petitioner with the self-same prayer for regular bail as earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected on merit by this Court vide order dated 11.03.2026 passed in B.A. No.147 of 2026. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fresh ground is that in the meantime three witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and all of them have supported the case of the prosecution. It is next submitted that in the cross-examination, the P.W.-1-victim has stated that she did not state in her earlier statement in the court the exact verbatim that she has stated in para-3 of her examination-in-chief. It is further submitted that in para-15 she has also stated that it is false to say that at the time of occurrence, she was changing her dress after coming back from school. It is next submitted that she has further stated that in her earlier statement in the court she did not say that the petitioner removed her clothes and forced himself upon her. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 09.11.2025. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that it is a settled principle of law that one person cannot have razor sharp memory that the exact verbatim which he states in his statement under Section 180 of B.N.S.S., 2023 or under Section 183 of B.N.S.S, 2023 can be reproduced by such witness in her deposition in court. It is next submitted that the sum and substance of the statement made by the victim in court was there in her earlier statement and there is no major contradiction between the testimony given by the victim in her examination-in-chief with any of her earlier statement. So, in the absence of any contradiction between the statement made by the victim in her examination-in-chief with any of her previous statement merely departing from the same with some verbatim will not in any manner undermine the testimony of the victim accordingly the same cannot be a ground to reconsider the prayer for bail of the petitioner; which has already been rejected on merit by this Court vide order dated 11.03.2026 passed in B.A. No.147 of 2026. It is also submitted that in view of the overwhelming evidence that has already come in record for the witnesses examined during the trial, against the petitioner, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence if released on bail. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner ought not be released on bail at this stage. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the evidence that has already come in record through the witnesses examined by the prosecution as well as his chance of absconding and tampering with the evidence and also the fact that the prayer for bail of the petitioner has earlier been rejected on merit, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioner be released on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected at this stage. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated-10.07.2026-Animesh/