2026:JHHC:24053 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7303 of 2026 Arun Paswan @ Arun Kumar, aged about 21 years, son of Mannu Paswan, resident of Village- Ratanpura, P.O. and P.S. Birni, District Giridih. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, APP For the Informant : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate --- 05/12.08.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Birni P.S. Case No. 244 of 2025, registered under sections 126(2)/115(2)/117(2)/74/64/ 62/352/3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, sections 8/12 of POCSO Act and section 66 (E) of I.T. Act, now pending in the court of learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Giridih. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 15.06.2026 and though the petitioner is a named accused in the First Information Report, but he has been falsely implicated in this case. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that he is not aware as to whether the charge sheet has been submitted or not. 5. The learned counsel for the State and the informant, on the other hand, have opposed the prayer for bail and have submitted that charge sheet has not been submitted so far. They submit that the impugned order reveals that the victim, aged 15 years, has supported the allegation in her statement recorded under Section 183 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. They further submit that as per the First Information Report, the petitioner and two others used to trouble the victim for a long time while she was going to her school and they had also attempted to assault the victim physically. It is also submitted that when the informant objected to the conduct of the 2026:JHHC:24053 2 accused persons, the other accused persons named in the FIR assaulted the informant. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and considering the direct allegation against the petitioner, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected. 7. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:12.08.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:13.08.2026