KARAN ALIAS CHHOTU KUMAR ALIAS KARAN KUMAR v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
B.A./5533/2026 · 2026-07-23
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 21592 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 21592 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
( 2026:JHHC:21881 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5533 of 2026
Karan @ Chhotu Kumar @ Karan Kumar son of Kali Ravidas
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
… … Opp. Party ---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Fahad Alam, A.P.P.
---
05/23.07.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 09.01.2026 in connection with Chirkunda (Galfarbari O.P.) P.S. Case No. 372 of 2025, corresponding to Spl. POCSO Case No. 23 of 2026, for the offences registered under Sections 137(2), 96 of the B.N.S. 2023 and after investigation charge sheet has been submitted under Sections 137(2), 87,65(1) of BNS, 2023 and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and after cognizance, charge has been framed on 13.03.2026 under Section 87 of the BNS and under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, pending in the court of learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Dhanbad.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the victim has already been examined and she has turned hostile. He submits that out of 06 charge sheeted witnesses, 04 have already been examined till
21.04.2026. He submits that thereafter no further witness has been examined. The victim was admittedly less than 14 years on the alleged date of occurrence.
4.
Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the evidence of the victim reveals that she had gone to Uttar Pradesh along with the petitioner.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected.
( 2026:JHHC:21881 ) 2
6. However, the State is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses be promptly produced before the court.
7. The learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution and Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance.
8. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through FAX/e-mail.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 23.07.2026 Uploaded on 24.07.2026 Binit/