2026:JHHC:28747 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8951 of 2026 Raj Kumar Ram @ Raj Kumar, aged about 23 years, Son of Suresh Ram, Resident of- Village-Chutiyaro, Saroni, P.O & P.S -Muffasil, District- Hazaribagh. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Ms. Sonal Sodhani, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, Advocate --- 02/24th September 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 93/2026 corresponding to Special POCSO Case No. 38/2026 for the offence registered under Sections 64(2) (k), 64(2) (m) of BNS and Section 6 of POCSO Act, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Special Judge POCSO, Hazaribagh. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is numerous delay in filing the FIR, which is to the extent of about a year. It has been alleged in the FIR that the minor victim was being sexually assaulted by the petitioner from time to time, who happens to be differently abled and when it came to the knowledge of the family and society, a panchayati was convened and it was decided that the petitioner would marry the victim. However, the case was lodged when the petitioner marry another lady. The charge has been framed on 28.07.2026 and the victim has not yet been examined. 3. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner. The victim happens to be the minor and the petitioner is the neighbour of the victim and therefore at this stage, the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail. 2026:JHHC:28747 2 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that there is a direct and specific allegation made against the petitioner, who happens to be the victim’s neighbour and that the victim is yet to be examined before the learned court, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is hereby rejected. 5. However, it is surprising, as submitted by the petitioner counsel for the petitioner, that the charge was framed on 28.07.2026, but the victim has not been examined so far irrespective of the provision of Section 35 of the POCSO Act, which provides that the victim is to be examined within one month from the date of cognizance. 6. In such circumstances, the State is directed to ensure prompt production of the witnesses including 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: 24.09.2026 Uploaded On: 28.09.2026 Mukul/-