2026:JHHC:27708 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8444 of 2026 XXXX … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Praful Jojo, APP --- 05/15.09.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 24.05.2026 in connection with Mirzachowki P.S. Case No.81 of 2025, registered under Section 96 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, now pending in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Sahibganj. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the victim had love affair and the FIR was lodged when the victim was found missing. He submits that the petitioner is 26 years of age and the victim is alleged to be 16 years 1 month and 28 days old on the date of FIR i.e. 02.11.2025. 4. The learned counsel submits that there is some kind of compromise between the parties in as much as the petitioner and the victim are married to each other. 5. The learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the impugned order itself reveals that the minor victim was taken to Tamil Nadu by the petitioner, where they lived as husband and wife and the victim became pregnant and delivered a child. He further submits that consent of minor is of no consequence. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is all likelihood that he will influence the witnesses including the victim. 6. During the course of hearing, it transpired that the charge sheet has been submitted but charge has not been framed. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and 2026:JHHC:27708 2 considering the fact that the victim was a minor on the date of alleged offence and that the petitioner aged 26 years took the victim to Tamil Nadu and she became pregnant and that the offence being non- compoundable, and there is likelihood that if the petitioner is released on bail, he shall influence the victim, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 8. However, the State is directed that as and when the trial commences, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses including the victim be promptly recorded taking into consideration Section 35 of the POCSO Act. 9. The learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district and also to Director, Prosecution to ensure compliance. 10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:15.09.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:17.09.2026