2026:JHHC:22446 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5778 of 2026 Tejnarayan Ganjhu, Son of Prem Ganjhu … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Sr. Advocate Ms. Sanskriti Shahni, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, Advocate --- 05/29th July 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Balumath P.S. Case No. 43/2026 for the offence registered under Sections 65(1), 304(2), 351(3), 115(2) of BNS and Section 4 & 6 of POCSO Act, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Special Judge POCSO, Latehar. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, aged 26 years, has been falsely implicated in this case and is in custody since 14.04.2026. The learned counsel has also submitted that the victim herself is the informant of the case. The charge-sheet has already been submitted and there is enormous delay in lodging the FIR. It has been alleged in the FIR that in May 2025, the petitioner had taken the victim into a lodge in Hazaribagh by stating that he would buy a mobile phone for her and then established physical relationship with her. The learned counsel submits that as per the FIR, the victim moved with the petitioner from place to place and ultimately when she was caught, she lodged the FIR. 3. Learned counsel for the opposite party has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that as per school’s records, the date of birth of the victim is 01.01.2011 and the victim was aged around 15 years on the date of lodging of the FIR. The statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, which was called for, has been placed on record. The 2026:JHHC:22446 2 statement of the victim reveals that she has fully supported the prosecution case. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the direct allegation made against the petitioner with respect to the victim, who was 15 years of age on the initial date of occurrence in the month of May 2025, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is hereby rejected. 5. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 29.07.2026 Uploaded On: 31.07.2026 Mukul/-