2026:JHHC:26327 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7271 of 2026 Niraj Kumar, aged about 41 years, S/o Shankar Ram, resident of village Shankarpur, P.O. & P.S. Meharma, District Godda … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Ajay Kumar Pathak, Advocate For the Informant : Ms. Mridula Thakur, Advocate --- 03/1st September 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Godda (Town) P.S. Case No. 112/2026, Special (POCSO) Case No. 46/2026 for the offence registered under Section 69/123/3(5) of BNS and Section 6 of POCSO Act, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Special Judge (POCSO), Godda. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner happens to be the father of the main accused, in connection with whom, it is alleged that he developed physical relationship with the victim on the pretext of marriage. The victim is admittedly a minor and the charge-sheet has already been submitted. There is a delay of 37 days in lodging the FIR. 3. So far as the petitioner is concerned, the learned counsel submits that it is only alleged that the petitioner and his son went to the house of the victim and administrated some poison upon her, due to which she became senseless. Learned counsel submits that there was a love affair between the petitioner's son and the victim and they were supposed to get married. Therefore, there was no reason for the petitioner to go to the 2026:JHHC:26327 2 house of the victim and cause any harm to her. As per the charge-sheet, the victim denied medical examination. The charge-sheet having been submitted, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the State and the Informant have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the entire incident had happened so as to deny marriage. During investigation, it has come on record that after the incident, the victim was taken from one hospital to another and was treated at AIIMS, Deoghar. She is still undergoing treatment, and some inflammatory substance was allegedly administered to her, due to which she is unable to speak. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that the victim was administered certain inflammatory substance due to which she injured and was treated from one hospital to another. The victim is a minor and has supported the allegations against the petitioner and his son in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS. In her statement, she has also stated that a surgery was required for her. The fact remains that the victim is yet to be examined. 6. Considering the nature of allegation made against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Hence, this bail application is hereby rejected. 7. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 01.09.2026 Uploaded On: 01.09.2026 Mukul/-