2026:JHHC:29096 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7523 of 2026 Karan Mahto @ Karan Kumar Mahto, aged about 23 years, Son of Pradeep Mahto, Resident of Village Labda, Barharwa, P.O. & P.S. Barharwa, District Sahibganj … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate For the Informant : Mr. Binay Kumar Sahay, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate --- 08/28th September 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 15.05.2026 in connection with Barharwa P.S. Case No. 27/2026 (POCSO Case No. 30/2026) for the offence registered under Sections 65(1), 352, 3(5) of BNS, Section 4 of POCSO Act and Section 67(A), 67(B) of IT Act, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (POCSO Act), Sahibganj. 2. FSL report has been produced before this Court in a sealed cover. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is an allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner had prepared the video of rape committed by the co-accused with the victim. The video was neither found in the mobile of the co-accused nor in the mobile of the petitioner or his family members. However, the mobile of the mother of the petitioner was seized. 4. Learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the petitioner being present at the place of occurrence and preparing the video, which was made viral, even if the mobile was in the name of the mother of the petitioner, there is direct allegation against the petitioner of having used the mobile phone for 2026:JHHC:29096 2 preparation of video and making it viral. The learned counsel submits that his presence at the spot while preparing video is enough to connect the petitioner with the allegation of gang rape of minor girl. 5. During the course of hearing, it transpired that the victim has not yet been examined before the learned court. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the direct allegation made against the petitioner of having prepared the alleged video and 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. Hence, this bail application is hereby rejected. 7. The FSL report, so submitted by the learned counsel for the State, is returned to him, so that the same is duly forwarded to the court concerned. 8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 28.09.2026 Uploaded On: 30.09.2026 Mukul/-