( 2026:JHHC:24520 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7425 of 2026 Suresh Karwa @ Chhota Karwa … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- 04/14.08.2026 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 Chaibasa Mufassil P.S. Case No. 58 of 2025, Special POCSO Case No. 14 of 2025, for the offences registered under Sections 64(2) (m), 65(2) of the B.N.S. 2023 and section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge-II cum Special Judge, POCSO, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 13.04.2026 in B.A. No. 9763 of 2025. The learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail primarily on the ground that as per DNA report, the petitioner is not the biological father of the child born to the victim. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the present case is a case of rape by two persons and therefore DNA report may not have much relevance. The learned counsel for the State submits that the victim is of 12 years of age and the allegation is that the petitioner and one co- accused Dasrath Karwa had repeatedly raped the victim on a number of occasions and on account of which she became pregnant. The learned counsel submits that merely because DNA report reveals that the petitioner is not the biological father of the child of the victim , the same has no bearing in the matter. 5. At this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that 03 witnesses out of 06 have already been examined and I.O. and two other witnesses are remaining to be examined. ( 2026:JHHC:24520 ) 2 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner and also one co-accused who are alleged to have repeatedly committed rape upon the victim, DNA report by itself is not sufficient to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected. 7. However, the state is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses are promptly produced before the court. 8. The learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director Prosecution and Superintendent of Police of the concerned District to ensure compliance. 9. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 14.08.2026 Uploaded on: 17.08.2026 Binit/