Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:24818 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7774 of 2026 Vijay Choudhary, aged about 24 years, son of Bishwnath Choudhary @ Vishwanath Choudhary, resident of village- Auraiya, P.O.- Ataula, P.S.- Meral, Dist.- Garhwa, Jharkhand … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Dinesh Choudhary, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, A.P.P. --- 02/18.08.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 02.05.2025 in connection with Garhwa Mahila P.S. Case No.10 of 2025, corresponding to POCSO Case No.67 of 2025 for the offences registered under Sections 65(1)/332(b)/351(2) of the B.N.S. 2023 and section 4/6 of POCSO Act, pending in the court of learned Special Judge POCSO Act-cum- Additional Sessions Judge-I- cum-FTC(Crime against Women), Garhwa. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 02.05.2025 and the last witness has been examined on 02.11.2025 and thereafter, the witnesses are not coming. He further submits that 7 witnesses, out of 9 witnesses have already been examined. The learned counsel submits that the remaining witnesses left to be examined are I.O. and Doctor. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the victim has been examined and she has supported the prosecution case. 5. To this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the doctor has also been examined, but there is contradiction and the medical examination does not support the prosecution case. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records of this case this court finds that the bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected on 01.09.2025 in B.A. No.7471 of 2025. However, during the course of argument, this aspect of the matter has 2 not been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The fact remains that out of 9 witnesses, 7 witnesses have already been examined and trial is going on. 7. In view of the direct allegation against the petitioner and the bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected on merits, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is hereby rejected. 8. However, the State is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses are promptly produced before the court. 9. The learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district and also to the Director, Prosecution State of Jharkhand to ensure compliance. 10. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 18.08.2026 Uploaded on 19.08.2026 Jay/