2026:JHHC:22391 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5495 of 2026 Chhotelal Yadav, son of Vijay Prasad Yadav … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Victim … … Opposite Parties --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Pandey (No.2), Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, APP For the Informant : Mr. Manoj Kumar (No.2), Advocate --- 04/29.07.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 02.09.2025 in connection with POCSO No. 102 of 2025 arising out of Meral P.S. Case No. 194 of 2025, registered under Section 137(2), 87, 351(3), 89, 352, 126(2), 115(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, sections 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act and section 4/6 of POCSO Act, now pending in the court of learned Special Judge POCSO Act-cum Additional Sessions Judge-I- cum-FTC (Crime Against Woman), Garhwa. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and there is a delay of 8 months in lodging the First Information Report. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State and the informant, on the other hand, have opposed the prayer for bail and have submitted that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner. The victim belonging to SC/ST community is aged 15 years and she has narrated the entire incident in her statement recorded under section 183 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita wherein she has stated as to how she was taken away to Himachal and then, the petitioner forcibly established physical relationship with her by keeping her locked in a room. Ultimately, the family members of the petitioner called them to Delhi and thereafter, they came to Jharkhand. 5. In view of the statement of the victim recorded under section 2026:JHHC:22391 2 183 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and admittedly, the victim was minor on the alleged date of occurrence, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected. 6. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:29.07.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:31.07.2026