[2026:JHHC:21160] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.6099 of 2026 ------ Ravi Shankar Sharma @ Guddu Sharma, aged about 26 years, S/o Late Sudi Sharma, R/o Village – Japla, P.O. & P.S. – Hussainabad, District – Palamau, Jharkhand. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kr. Choubey, Advocate Mr. Madhav Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Shweta Singh, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated-17-07-2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Hussainabad P.S. Case No. 226 of 2025 corresponding to POCSO Case No. 02 of 2026 registered for the offence punishable under Section 137(2) of the B.N.S., 2023. This is the second journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail. Earlier the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was rejected on merit by this Court vide order dated 24.03.2026 passed in B.A. No. 2322 of 2026. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fresh ground is that in the meanwhile, the informant has been examined as P.W.1 and he has supported the case of the prosecution but in the cross-examination, he stated that he does not remember the date of birth of the victim mentioned at the time of admission of the victim in the school and he does not understand what the date of birth means and he also admitted that there is a dispute regarding the land with the accused. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 19.10.2025 as mentioned in para-15 of the instant bail application. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail. Learned counsel appearing for the State on the other hand opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that since PW-1 – informant has supported the case of the prosecution and there is no justification to grant bail to the petitioner as prayer for regular bail of the petitioner has already been rejected on merits; hence, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence, if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be released on bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner as well as the chance of his absconding and tampering with the evidence, if released on bail, this Court is not inclined to admit the above named petitioner to bail at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above named petitioner is rejected at this stage. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated:- 17.07.2026 Saroj/