( 2026:JHHC:29228 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9091 of 2026 Roshan Ganjhu @ Raushan Bhogta, UID-5877 8916 1845, aged about 25 years, S/o-Chandru Ganjhu, Resident of Bartua, Chutupalu, Ormanjhi, P.O.+P.S.-Ormanjhi, District-Ranchi, (Jharkhand) … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- 02/29.09.2026 Learned counsel for the petitioner is present. 2. Learned counsel for the Opp. Party-State Mr. Fahad Allam is also present. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 19.12.2024 in connection with Sadar (Mesra O.P.) P.S. Case No. 543 of 2024 corresponding to Spl. POCSO Case No. 25 of 2025, registered under Section 115(2) & 117 of B.N.S. and Sections 4, 6, 8 & 12 of POCSO Act, now pending in the court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner IV, Ranchi cum Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ranchi. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected earlier in B.A. No.3784 of 2025 vide order dated 06.10.2025. He submits that there are altogether six charge-sheet witnesses and the petitioner is in custody since 19.12.2024. The charge has been framed on 21.06.2025 for alleged offence under Section 63 of B.N.S. and also under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, but no witness has been examined so far. The counsel has submitted that even the mandate of Section 35 of the POCSO Act has not been followed by the prosecution, inasmuch as, even the victim has not been examined. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner which is also supported by the medical report of the victim boy who was sexually assaulted by the petitioner. He submits ( 2026:JHHC:29228 ) 2 that the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail. 6. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the direct allegation against the petitioner and also that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected earlier on merits and victim and other material witnesses are yet to be examined before the learned Court, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. 7. However, there can be no reason for the prosecution for not producing the victim and the prosecution witnesses before the learned court. It appears that the prosecution has completely ignored the mandate of Section 35 of the POCSO Act. In such circumstances, the State is directed to ensure that the witnesses are promptly produced before the Court. 8. Learned counsel for the state is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district and the Director Prosecution, to ensure compliance. 9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:29.09.2026 Nandini Date of Uploading: