2026:JHHC:20988 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5793 of 2026 Sonu Ezaz, aged about 27 years, S/o Md. Manjur Alam @ Manjur Ansari … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Ms. Vani Kumari, Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P. --- 05/15.07.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 02.10.2023 in connection with in connection with POCSO Case No. 151 of 2023, arising out of Hirodih P.S. Case No. 108 of 2023 (G.R. Case No. 7951 of 2023), for the alleged offence registered under Sections 376(2)(n), 506, 509, and 354(C) of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 4/8 of the POCSO Act and charge has been framed under Sections 376(2)(n), 506, 509 and 354(c) of the Indian Penal Code and section 51/6 POCSO Act, and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Giridih. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a counter affidavit has been filed by the Superintendent of Police, Giridih stating therein that out of 15 charge sheeted witnesses, 13 have already been examined. The next date before the learned trial court is 24.07.2026 for recording evidence of the investigating officer as well as Pawan Kumar Sharma and the prosecution is taking all necessary steps to ensure their production on the said date so that the trial may proceed without any further delay. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State has opposed and prayer for bail and has submitted that the trial is at fag end and the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail. The bail 2026:JHHC:20988 2 application of the petitioner has been rejected thrice by this Court as there is direct allegation against the petitioner. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and it is not in dispute that only two witnesses are remaining to be examined in the next date before the trial court is 24.07.2026. Since, the trial is at fag end, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 6. The instant bail application is hereby rejected. 7. However, if the remaining two witnesses are not produced before the court by the prosecution and the prosecution evidence is not closed , the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after three months. 8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX/E-mail’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 15.07.2026 Rakesh/- Uploaded on:-15.07.2026