2026:JHHC:24258 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7524 of 2026 1. Samarh Nayak, Sumaru Nayak, aged about 46 years, son of Late Kaliya Nayak 2. Suraj Nayak @ Lakki, aged about-26 years Son of Late Bharkar both Nayak, Both are Resident of Village-Karaikela, P.O. & P.S. Karaikela, District West Singhbhum at Chaibasa … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Sanat Kumar Jha, Advocate --- 04/13th August 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners is in custody in connection with S.T. Case No. 229/2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 163/2025 arising out of Karaikela P.S. Case No. 16/2025 for the offence registered under Sections 74, 76, 115(2), 117 (2) 126 (2), 127(2), 351(2), 64, 62 (charge has been framed under Sections 126 (2), 127 (2), 351(2), 115(2), 74, 76 r/w section 3 (5) and 64 (1) r/w section 62 of B.N.S.), now said to have been pending in the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge POCSO Act, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are named in the FIR filed by the victim herself and there is an allegation that the petitioners had taken the victim to a school and while they were outrage her modesty, she raised alarm and thereafter people of the locality came there. The petitioners are in custody since 17.05.2025. Out of eight charge-sheet witnesses, two have been examined, but the victim has not been examined so far. 2026:JHHC:24258 2 3. Learned counsel for the opposite party has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is direct and specific allegation made against the petitioners. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the direct and specific allegation made against the petitioners and the fact that the victim has not yet been examined, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail at this stage. Hence, this bail application is hereby rejected. 5. However, the petitioners may renew their prayer for bail after four months. 6. In the meantime, the State is directed to make endeavour to examine the remaining witnesses before the learned court, particularly the victim of the case. 7. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Director, Prosecution as well as Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance. 8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 13.08.2026 Uploaded On: 13.08.2026 Mukul/-