2026:JHHC:21679 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5587 of 2026 Manish Kumar, son of Gyan Chand Singh @ Gyanchand Subba. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Jeetendra Kumar Mishra, Advocate : Mrs. Sarveshwari Kumari, Advocate --- 03/22.07.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 02.03.2026 in connection with Tisri P.S. Case No.19 of 2026, corresponding to POCSO Case No.61 of 2026, registered under Sections 126 (2), 352, 351 (2) (3), 78 of BNS and Section 12/18 of POCSO Act, now pending in the court of learned D.J VIII, Special Judge POCSO Act, Giridih. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that as per the allegations, negotiations for marriage of the daughter of the informant was going on and the marriage was to be solemnized after one year. However, the petitioner came to the house of the informant having sword in one hand and vermilion on the other and stated that it is he only who will marry the informant’s daughter and will kill the boy, who will marry her. 4. The learned counsel submits that there is no allegation of any physical exploitation between the petitioner and the victim. The learned counsel submits that the age of the victim was however assessed as 16 years on the date of occurrence. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no F.I.R. was lodged by the members of the proposed bridegroom. 6. The learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that out of 7 charge sheeted witnesses, 6 have already been examined and the trial is at fag end. 2026:JHHC:21679 2 7. The learned counsel further submits that there are direct and specific allegations against the petitioner and that the petitioner is bent upon marrying the daughter of the informant; however, neither the daughter of the informant is willing to marry the petitioner nor the family members of the informant are willing that she should marry the informant. 8. The statement of the victim under Section 183 BNSS, which also reveals that she is not interested in marrying the petitioner. 9. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the fact that there is direct allegation against the petitioner and the trial is at fag end, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 10. Hence, this bail application is rejected. 11. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:22.07.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:23.07.2026