( 2026:JHHC:24150 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7355 of 2026 Imamuddin Ansari @ Md. Imamuddin Ansari… … Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate (through V.C.) : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mrs. Lily Sahay, A.P.P. --- 03/12.08.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Pachamba P.S. Case No. 39 of 2026 corresponding to POCSO Case No. 89 of 2026, for the offences registered under Sections 351(2), 126(2),75 (1),74, 79 of the B.N.S. 2023 and section 10,12 of POCSO Act, pending in the court of learned Special Judge Pocso Act, Giridih. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and there was delay of two days in lodging the FIR. The petitioner is in custody since 25.04.2026 and charge sheet has already been submitted. He has further submitted that along with the bail application, he has annexed a copy of the attendance register and the informant who happens to be a student in the school in which petitioner is the principal, was not present on 22.04.2026. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner which has been lodged by the student herself and the attendance register which has been produced by the petitioner relates to class IX and the victim has stated that she was studying in class VIII. The allegation is that the victim went to collect her mark sheet from the petitioner and after collecting her mark sheet when she was going back, the petitioner called her again and committed the alleged offence. ( 2026:JHHC:24150 ) 2 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the direct allegation made against the petitioner who happens to be the principal of the school in which the victim aged 14 years was studying, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected. 6. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 12.08.2026 Uploaded on: 13.08.2026 Binit/