2026:JHHC:27028 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8317 of 2026 Sanatan Hembram, aged about 26 years, son of Loso Hembram @ Mester Hembram, Resident of Village-Sirka Tola, Baridih, P.O. Sukhlara & P.S. M.G.M, District- East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Apurv, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Praful Jojo, Advocate --- 04/9th September 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Galudih P.S. Case No. 07 of 2026 corresponding to Special POCSO Case No. 29/2026 for the offence registered under Sections 64(2)(m)/96/351(2) of BNS and Section 4/5 (1)/6 of POCSO Act, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Special Judge POCSO Act, Jamshedpur. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and is in custody since 26.04.2026. However, the charge was framed on 14.07.2026 for alleged offence under Sections 64(2)(m)/96/351(2) of BNS and Section 4/5(1)/6 of POCSO Act. There are altogether nine charge-sheet witnesses, but no witness has been examined so far, as mentioned in the impugned order dated 24.07.2026. 3. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner. The petitioner may not be enlarged on bail at this stage as the victim and another material witnesses are yet to be examined. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that there is direct allegation made against the petitioner and that the victim and other material witnesses are yet to be examined, this Court is 2026:JHHC:27028 2 not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is hereby rejected. 5. Under the provisions of the POCSO Act, the victim has to be examined within a period of one month from the date of cognizance but it appears that the victim has not been examined although the charge was framed on 14.07.2026. 6. In such circumstances, the State is directed to ensure prompt production of the witnesses, particularly the victim, before the learned court. 7. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Director, Prosecution as well as Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance. 8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 09.09.2026 Uploaded On: 10.09.2026 Mukul/-