( 2026:JHHC:21877 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5873 of 2026 Rahul Oraon , Son of Kishun Oraon … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, APP --- 09/23.07.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 12.05.2025 in connection with Spl. POCSO case No. 60 of 2025, arising out of Keredari P.S. Case No. 82 of 2025 for the offences registered under Sections 137(2), 74, 3(5), of the B.N.S. 2023 and section 8/12 of POCSO Act, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, III-cum-Spl. Judge, POCSO, Hazaribag. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the FIR the victim was tied with her dupatta and was assaulted by the petitioner and the petitioner also molested her. She submits that date of incident is 21.04.2025 and the FIR was lodged on 26.04.2025. There is delay of four days in lodging the FIR. The learned counsel has submitted that the victim was medically examined but nothing has come with regard to her assault. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the date of birth of the victim is 04.02.2010 and therefore she was just 15 years of age and the victim herself has lodged the FIR. So far as the medical examination is concerned, there has been some delay in medical examination and therefore the same may not cut much eyes. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the specific allegation against the petitioner by the victim and as per the impugned order the victim has fully supported the allegation in her statement under Section 183 BNSS, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected. ( 2026:JHHC:21877 ) 2 6. However, the stage of the case reveals that out of 07 witnesses, 05 have already been examined. 7. The learned counsel for the State is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses are promptly produced before the court. 8. The learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the S.P. of the concerned District and to the Director, Prosecution to ensure compliance. 9. 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/