2026:JHHC:29666 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8793 of 2026 Jitendra Singh @ Bajrangi Ji, aged about 24 years, son of Dasrath Singh, resident of Village Semriyatar, P.O. and P.S. Latehar, District Latehar (Jharkhand) … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sahil, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, APP --- 05/05.10.2026 Heard the learned counsels 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.17 of 2025 arising out of Latehar P.S. Case No.24 of 2025, registered under Sections 64(1), 62 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 8 and 12 of POCSO Act, now pending in the court of learned Special Judge POCSO, Latehar. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 06.03.2025 and at the time of filing of the bail application, only one witness was examined. However, as per his information, total 03 witnesses have been examined, including one of the victims of the case. He submits that out of the 02 victims, one of the victims has been examined, though she has not turned hostile but has not identified the petitioner. However, out of the two victims, one victim is yet to be examined before the learned court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected earlier on 17.03.2026 in B.A. No. 2109 of 2026. He submits that considering the custody of the petitioner, the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 5. Learned counsel for the state has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected earlier on merits and there is direct allegation against the petitioner. She submits that there are two victims, the informant and 2026:JHHC:29666 2 her sister aged 12 years, who somehow escaped from the clutches of the petitioner and the petitioner has numerous criminal antecedents. 6. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the direct and specific allegation against the petitioner and the bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected on merits coupled with the fact that the 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 and hence, the bail application of the petitioner is rejected. 7. However, the State is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses are promptly produced before the learned court. 8. The 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:05.10.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:06.10.2026