2026:JHHC:25288 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7712 of 2026 Rajak Ansari @ Razzak Ansari, aged 20 years, S/o-Asagar Miyan, Resident of Village-Chanpi, P.O- Lesliganj, P.S.-Lesliganj, District- Palamu (Jharkhand) … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Faruque Ansari, Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. Sanat Kumar Jha, APP --- 04/21.08.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 08.04.2025 in connection with POCSO Case No. 36 of 2025, Lesliganj P.S. Case No. 05 of 2025 for the alleged offence registered under Section 127(2) and 70(2) and 61(2) of the BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act pending in the court of Exclusive Special Judge, POCSO Act Palamau at Daltonganj. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected earlier on merits and thereafter, the prayer for bail has been renewed on the ground that the petitioner has remained in custody since 08.04.2025. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is serious allegation against the petitioner and that the case is at the stage of argument. 5. At this, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the matter is pending for the arguments of the prosecution and they are unnecessarily taking time. The next date in the trial court for arguments is 31st August, 2026. 2026:JHHC:25288 2 6. To this, learned counsel for the State has submitted that necessary instructions shall be issued to the APP so that he concludes his arguments at the earliest. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that there are serious allegation against the petitioner, the bail application of petitioner was rejected earlier on merits and the case is at the stage of arguments, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 8. The instant bail application is hereby rejected. 9. However, the State is directed to ensure that the concerned APP argues the case before the concerned court without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The petitioner has remained in custody since 08.04.2025. 10. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district, so that appropriate instructions be issued in the light of this order. 11. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX/E-mail’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 21.08.2026 Rakesh/- Uploaded on:-24.08.2026