( 2026:JHHC:25134 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7630 of 2026 Khalil Ansari son of Basir Ansari … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ayush Kumar Verma, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. S.P. Jha, APP -- 06/20.08.2026 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 Senha P.S. Case No. 01 of 2025, special POCSO Case No. 06/2025 for the offences registered under Sections 65(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 4/8 of the POCSO Act, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Lohardaga. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected earlier on merits vide order dated 02.09.2025 in B.A. No. 7533 of 2025 and he has renewed his prayer for bail on the ground of custody. The petitioner is in custody since 03.01.2025 and charge has been framed on 19.04.2025 and the last witness was examined on 06.11.2025 and thereafter there is no progress in the trial. Impugned order is dated 17.03.2025. The learned counsel submits that eight witnesses have been examined till 06.11.2025. The learned counsel submits that I.O. of the case is remained to be examined and he is not appearing before the court. 4. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the alleged crime is heinous crime and as per the allegation, the petitioner is alleged to have inserted his finger in the private part of three-year-old child, the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail. However, he has submitted that the prosecution would ensure that the remaining witness is produced before the court so that the trial is concluded. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and as per the statement made in the bail application, last witness was examined on ( 2026:JHHC:25134 ) 2 06.11.2025 and counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter no witness has been examined and only I.O. is remained to be examined. It is not open to the prosecution not the produce the witnesses and at the same time detaining the petitioner in custody. Since the bail application of the petitioner has been rejected on merits and considering the nature of allegation this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected. 6. However, the State is directed to ensure that the remaining witness is promptly produced before the court. 7. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned District and to the Director, Prosecution to ensure compliance. 8. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 20.08.2026 Uploaded on 21.08.2026 Binit/