2026:JHHC:9149 Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.11695 of 2025 Deepak Das @ Deepak Kumar Das, aged about 46 years, S/o. Late Dhirendra Nath Das, R/o. Vill.- Makrampur, P.O. & P.S.- Masalia, Dist.- Dumka, Jharkhand. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava For the Petitioner : Mr. Aishwarya Prakash, Adv. For the State : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P. Order No.05/Dated- 01.04.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. 2. The petitioner has been made an accused in connection with Special POCSO Case No. 12 of 2025 corresponding to Masaliya P.S. Case No. 10 of 2025, registered for offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 351(2), 351(3) and 74 of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 12 of the POCSO Act, subsequently cognizance has been taken under Sections 126(2), 351(2), 351(3) & 74 of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 8 of POCSO Act, which is pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-1-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Dumka. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather he has been falsely implicated in this case due to subsequent case being Masalia P.S. Case No. 11 of 2025, lodged by wife of this petitioner against the informant of this case for commission of rape upon her. It is further submitted that in the instant case, police has submitted final report for the offence under Sections 115(2) & 152 of the B.N.S., 2023 and the offence under Section 12 of the POCSO Act was not found to be true but the learned court below has taken cognizance under Sections 126(2), 351(2), 351(3) & 74 of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 8 of the POCSO Act. It is 2026:JHHC:9149 Page | 2 also submitted that occurrence is said to have been happened on 24.01.2025 and the present F.I.R. has been lodged on 06.02.2025 and there is delay in lodging of the F.I.R. It is also submitted that petitioner is in custody since 25.09.2025. Petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the investigation and trial of the case and abides by all terms and conditions which may be imposed. Hence, the petitioner may be admitted to bail. 4. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and has submitted that there is directed allegation against this petitioner for commission of sexual assault upon 12 years' minor girl while returning from school. It is further submitted that petitioner has also lodged a case against the informant in order to set defense on the basis of false and fabricated story. It is also submitted that cognizance against the petitioner for serious offence has been taken by the concerned trial Court and hence, the petitioner does not deserve bail. 5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation against the petitioner and also in view of the fact that there is serious allegation of sexual assault against 12 years' old minor girl, where there is delay in lodging of the F.I.R. as occurrence took place on 24.01.2025 but the F.I.R. was lodged on 06.02.2025 due to non-disclosure of incident by the victim girl, who was scared due to threatening by the petitioner, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) 01.04.2026 Rahul Uploaded on 01/04/2026