2026:JHHC:29265 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8275 of 2026 Dipak Rajak, Aged about 18 years, S/O- Gopal Rajak, R/O-Village- Nawadih, P.O- Dumma, P.S- Jamua, District-Giridih. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Sahu, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, APP For the Informant : Mr. Vishal Kumar, Advocate --- 07/29.09.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 20.02.2026 in connection with Sessions Trial Case No. 236 of 2026 arising out of Jamua P.S. Case No. 42 of 2026 registered under sections 87, 351(2), 352 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S), 2023, now pending in the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-V, Giridih. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is aged 18 years and has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the victim herself had travelled to Hyderabad and the petitioner has no role to play. The petitioner has been working in Hyderabad in a hotel. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has thereafter submitted that the charge has been framed on 06.06.2026. Total charge sheet witnesses are 07, but no witness has been examined so far. 5. Learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the victim was minor and the petitioner was instrumental in taking away the victim to Hyderabad. He has also submitted that the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 be perused. 6. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, this Court finds that the 2026:JHHC:29265 2 victim has stated that the petitioner had called her over phone pursuant to which she left her home and ultimately, she went to Hyderabad. She has also stated that the petitioner and the victim also got married. Considering the fact that the victim is yet to be examined before the learned court, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage and hence, this bail application is rejected. 7. However, the State is directed to ensure that the witnesses are promptly produced before the learned court, particularly the victim, who is required to be examined within one month from the date of taking cognizance in terms of Section 35(1) of the POCSO Act. 8. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution and Superintendent of Police of the concerned district 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 Pankaj Date of Uploading:01.10.2026