2026:JHHC:9745 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 2766 of 2026 Dinanath Munda, Son of Late Laldev Munda… … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Chandan Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. Fahad Allam, Advocate --- 04/07.04.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 24.09.2025 in connection with Patratu P.S. Case No. 231 of 2025, corresponding to Special POCSO Case No. 41 of 2025, for the alleged offence registered under Sections 64, 65(2), 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4 and 5 of POCSO Act pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Ramgarh. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and there is delay in filing the First Information Report (F.I.R). Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that as per the examination by the doctor, there is no sign of rape. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that there is serious allegation against the petitioner, who is 50 years of age, and the victim is just 11 years of age and it is alleged that the petitioner had repeatedly raped the victim and the delay is explained that because of social stigma there has been some delay. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that since there is some delay in FIR , there was no occasion to have any sign of rape at the time of medical examination. 2026:JHHC:9745 2 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact of direct allegation against the petitioner which is very serious in nature, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 6. This bail application is accordingly rejected. 7. At this, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial may be expedite as the charge sheet has already been submitted and cognizance has also been taken. 8. The State is directed to ensure prompt production of witnesses. 9. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution as well as Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance. 10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX/E-mail’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 07.04.2026 Rakesh/- Uploaded on:-08.04.2026