2026:JHHC:26241 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7511 of 2026 XXX … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- 05/31.08.2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner is present. 2. Learned counsel for the State Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, Advocate is present. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 28.07.2025 in connection with POCSO Case No. 78 of 2025, arising out of Katkamsandi P.S. Case No. 166 of 2025 registered for the offences allegedly committed under Sections 65(1)/ 89 of the B.N.S. and under Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act, however, Charge-sheet submitted and cognizance was taken under Sections 65(1)/ 89 of the B.N.S. and under Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act and thereafter, charge has been framed against the petitioner under Sections 64(2)(f), 65(1), 89 of the BNS and under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, pending in the Court of Learned Additional Session Judge, III cum Special Judge (POCSO) at Hazaribagh. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the bail application of the petitioner was withdrawn earlier. The petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail on account of period of custody. The petitioner is in custody since 28.07.2025. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the father of the victim is the accused in the present case and the victim was minor. It is alleged that the petitioner had committed rape upon his daughter. Therefore, he may not be enlarged on bail. 2026:JHHC:26241 2 6. To this, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that out of 6 charge-sheet witnesses, 2 witnesses have already been examined. Some observation may be made so that the trial may be expedited. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that there is direct allegation against the petitioner, as stated above, 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 remaining witnesses are promptly produced before the court. 10. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution as well as Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance. 11. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX/E-mail’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 31.08.2026 Rakesh/- Uploaded on:-02.09.2026