2026:JHHC:21938 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 6538 of 2026 Deepak Kumar @ Dashrath Mahto, S/o Kali Mahto … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, APP --- 02/24.07.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 19.09.2025 in connection with Bishnugarh P.S. Case No. 172 of 2025 corresponding to Spl. POCSO Case No. 94 of 2025, registered under Sections 96, 87 and 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, now pending in the court of learned Additional Session Judge, IV-cum- Spl. Judge, POCSO, Hazaribagh. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is an allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner had taken away along with him the minor daughter of the informant. He submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and First Information Report of kidnapping was filed against the petitioner with respect to minor daughter of the informant aged 15 years. The petitioner is in custody since 19.09.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that with consent of the family members of the victim, the petitioner had taken the victim to Rajasthan and thereafter, they stayed there for about 9 days and after filing of the First Information Report, they came back. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner was the tutor of the victim and therefore, there was no problem on the part of the victim’s family members in sending their daughter with the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is direct allegation made against the petitioner and it has also been alleged that 2026:JHHC:21938 2 when on 11.09.2025, the informant contacted the petitioner, at times he used to say that he is in Karnataka or at Bishnugarh and also stated that he was in love with daughter of the informant. It is alleged that the petitioner refused to bring back the victim and upon such refusal, the First Information Report was lodged. The learned counsel for the State also submits that the victim belongs to SC/ST community. 6. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the direct allegation made against the petitioner who is said to have taken the victim to Rajasthan and the petitioner was also tutor of the victim, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected. 7. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:24.07.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:25.07.2026