( 2026:JHHC:9184 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 462 of 2026 Sourav Thakur, aged about 19 years, Son of Tarkeshwar Thakur, Resident of Village-Bariyardih, P.O. & P.S.- Markachho, District- Koderma. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Kumar Roy, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl. P.P. --- 06/01.04.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 08.09.2025, in connection with Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 246 of 2025 for the offences registered under Sections 137(2)/64(2)(m)/351(2)/3(5) of the B.N.S and section 4/6 of POCSO Act, also cognizance has been taken under sections 96/ 62(2)(m) of BNS and section 6 of POCSO Act. pending in the court of learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Giridih in POCSO Case No. 137 of 2025. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the main allegation is against Sachin Yadav who is the co-accused who is said to have kidnapped the minor girl. He has also submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 08.09.2025 but the charge has not been framed so far. He has submitted that there is delay of 10 days in filing the FIR. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner that though Sachin Yadav had taken the victim to Hyderabad by train under threatening of life but the petitioner got married with the victim and also established physical relationship with the victim. The victim is a minor and taken to Hyderabad. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the petitioner is a named accused against whom there is direct allegation and the victim is a minor, this court is ( 2026:JHHC:9184 ) 2 not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected. 6. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 01/04/2026 Uploaded on: 02.04.2026 Binit/