2026:JHHC:21597 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5141 of 2026 Munna Kumar Yadav @ Munna Yadav, Son of Late Ranjit Yadav … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Achinto Sen, Advocate For the Informant : Mr. Kumar Rahul, Advocate --- 06/22nd July 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Rikhiya P.S. Case No. 45 of 2026 for the offence registered under Section 64(1) of BNS, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Deoghar. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 05.04.2026 and as per the counter-affidavit, charge-sheet has been submitted under Section 64(2)(m) of BNS and Section 8/12 of POCSO Act against the petitioner on 29.05.2026. The learned counsel submits that the victim herself has stated that she was 18 years of age. However, as per the school record of the victim, she was 17 years and 11 months of age. The learned counsel submits that there was love affair between the petitioner and the victim. 3. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has referred to the FIR itself to submit that as per the case of the victim, the petitioner allured her on the pretext of marriage and on the basis of such assurance, established physical relationship with her over a period of three months and ultimately he refused to marry. The learned counsel submits that there is no indication of any love affair. 4. Learned counsel for the informant has also opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the charge has been framed under Section 2026:JHHC:21597 2 64(2)(m) of BNS and Section 6 of POCSO Act, as per the web order uploaded by the learned court. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the direct and specific allegation made against the petitioner and that the victim has supported the allegation in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS and admittedly she was minor on the alleged date of occurrence, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is hereby rejected. 6. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 22.07.2026 Uploaded On: 23.07.2026 Mukul/-