( 2026:JHHC:28806 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8926 of 2026 Mithlesh Turi aged about 23 years son of Basudev Turi, Resident of Village-Jaridih, P.O. Dumma and P.S. Jamua, District-Giridih, Jharkhand … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Mritunjay Chaudhary, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Nawin Kumar Singh, APP 02/24.09.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with POCSO Case No. 99 of 2026, arising out of Tisri P.S. Case No. 44 of 2026, for the offences registered under Sections 96/3(5) of the B.N.S. 2023 and vide order dated 14.08.2026, charge under Sections 96/3(5), 64(1), 351(2) of the BNS and Section 4 of the POCSO Act has been added against the petitioner, pending in the court of learned Special Judge, POCSO Act at Giridih. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the FIR, the daughter of the informant aged 16 years 04 months was taken away. He submits that the manner in which the incident is said to have happened is almost impossible to believe in as much as one person cannot take away another person in a motorcycle. It is submitted that there is delay in lodging the FIR. The petitioner is in custody since 14.05.2026 just after one day of institution of the FIR. The learned counsel submits that charge has been framed on 14.08.2026 for the offence under Sections 96/3(5), 64(1), 351(2)/3(5) of the BNS and Section 4 of the POCSO Act against the petitioner and altogether there are 07 charge sheet witnesses. Charge has also been framed against the co-accused who has been enlarged on bail by this court in B.A. No. 6403 of 2026 vide order dated 03.08.2026. The learned counsel refers to the information available in the e-court portal and submits that on 09.09.2026 no witness was produced, even the victim was not produced before the court and the next date is on 30.09.2026. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner be enlarged on bail. ( 2026:JHHC:28806 ) 2 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the specific allegation is against the petitioner and so far as co-accused is concerned, he has been granted bail on the ground that upon perusal of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS there was no allegation against the co-accused Sonu Turi and the entire allegation was made against the present petitioner. However, during the course of hearing the learned counsel for the State is unable to explain as to why the minor victim has not been produced before the court on 09.09.2026 in spite of the mandate of POCSO Act that the victim has to be examined within one month from the date of the cognizance. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the main allegation is against the present petitioner who is alleged to have taken away the daughter of the informant under allurement of marriage and the victim made a statement under Section 183 BNSS that the petitioner established physical relationship with her forcefully. In such circumstance, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail as the victim is yet to be examined. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected. 6. However, the State is directed to ensure that the witnesses are promptly produced before the court. The next date indicated is on 30.09.2026. 7. The learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned District and to the Director, Prosecution to ensure compliance. 8. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 24.09.2026 Uploaded on 28.09.2026 Binit/