2026:JHHC:24127 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7285 of 2026 Mukhtar Sheikh @ Muktar Shekh, aged about 65 years, S/o Late Sheesh Mohammad @ Sheesh Munshi Ashish Munshi @ Shish Mohammad Shekh, Resident of: Village- Fulbariya, P.O + P.S: Rajmahal, District- Sahibganj (Jharkhand) … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, Advocate --- 05/12th August 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with POCSO Case No. 19 of 2026 arising out of Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 39/2026 for the offence registered under Section 137(2) of BNS and Section 8/12 of POCSO Act, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum Special Judge (POCSO Act), Sahibganj. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aged 60 years and the victim is aged 5 years and the case appears to have been lodged on account of some confusion. The petitioner is in custody since 31.01.2026. 3. Learned counsel for the opposite party has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is an allegation of sexual assault by the petitioner on the victim and merely because the petitioner is 60 years of age, the same has no relevance. The victim in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, as mentioned in the impugned order, has stated that the petitioner had tried to make such attempt earlier also and the petitioner happens to be the neighbour of the victim. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation made against the petitioner and the fact that the 2026:JHHC:24127 2 victim, aged 5 years, has supported the allegation in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is hereby rejected. 5. At this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge has been framed and the trial has commenced, but not even single witness has been examined before the learned court so far. 6. The State is directed to ensure prompt production of the witnesses during trial. 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: 12.08.2026 Uploaded On; 13.08.2026 Mukul/-