2026:JHHC:239 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8614 of 2025 Deepak Bakhla, aged about 25 years, Son of Santosh Bakhla, resident of Village – Galesera Barkatoli, P.O. & P.S. – T. Tangar (Rengarih), District – Simdega. ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, A.P.P. --------- Order No. 14/Dated: 29th January, 2026 1. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Special POCSO Case No. 01 of 2024 arising out of Rengarih P.S. Case No.08 of 2023 registered for the offences under sections 376(3), 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and sections 4, 6 and 8 of POCSO Act, 2012, pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (POCSO Act) at Simdega. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier twice the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected on merits by this Court, lastly on 11.04.2025 passed in B.A. No. 1563 of 2025 with liberty to renew the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner after four months, if the trial is not concluded within aforesaid period of time. 4. Learned counsel has further submitted that in terms of the liberty, the petitioner has renewed his prayer for regular bail after expiry of four months. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the trial of the case and remain physically present on each and every date till the conclusion of the trial and shall not indulge in tampering with the prosecution evidence 2026:JHHC:239 or influence the witnesses or gain over them. The petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 28.10.2023 without any rhymes and reasons. Hence the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 6. Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and has submitted that the trial is at the fag end, as such, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail. 7. It appears that in terms of order dated 11.12.2025, fresh status report of the case was called for and the same has been received. From perusal of status report dated 17.12.2025, it appears that almost all the witnesses have been examined and two months’ time sought for conclusion of trial. 8. Considering the gravity of offence and the nature of allegation against petitioner coupled with materials available on record and also the fact that the prayer for bail of the petitioner was twice rejected on merits and the trial of the case is at the fag end, I am not inclined to release the above-named petitioner, on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) January 29, 2026 Sunil/ Uploaded on : 31.01.2026