Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 3207 (JHR)

RAM DULAL TUDU v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./251/2026 · 2026-04-01

Anubha Rawat Choudhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:9129 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 251 of 2026 Ram Dulal Tudu, aged about 57 years, son of late Shital Tudu, resident of Village – Batalukha, P.O. – Gobarghusi, P.S. Patamda, District – East Singhbhum, Jharkhand … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate : Mr. Bhaswat Prakash, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Fahad Allam, APP --- 04/01.04.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. The learned counsel for the State Mr. Fahad Allam, has joined the proceedings online. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 22.05.2025 in connection with Special POCSO Case No.46/2025, arising out of Patamda P.S. Case No.12/2025, registered for the offence under Sections 65 (1), 351 (3) of the B.N.S. and 6(1) of POCSO Act, now pending in the court of learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Jamshedpur. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he is in custody since 22.05.2025 and the DNA sample was sent but the report has not come so far. 5. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that the allegations are direct and very serious and the victim has also supported the prosecution case at the stage of trial. 6. However, he has submitted that the State shall make all endeavour to procure the report from the FSL and he undertakes to communicate this order to the concerned authority. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the direct allegations against the petitioner, the victim was just 12 years and was pregnant by 21 weeks, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 2026:JHHC:9129 2 8. The State shall endeavor to procure the FSL report and produce it before the concerned court. 9. The counsel for the state is directed to communicate this order to the Director Prosecution and the Superintendent of police of the concerned District to ensure compliance. 10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:01.04.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:02.04.2026