BABU DAS MURMU @ BABUDAS MURMU v. STATE OF JHARKHAND
B.A./1894/2026 · 2026-03-13
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 3720 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 3720 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:JHHC:6829 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 1894 of 2026
Babu Das Murmu @ Babudas Murmu, aged about 27 years, son of Fulchand Manjhi, resident of village – Baradih, Tola Baludih, P.O. & P.S. – Jaridih, District – Bokaro
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate
: Mrs. Pinki Kumari, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Advocate
--- 04/13.03.2026
Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 26.02.2025 in connection with Special POCSO P.S. Case No. 37 of 2025 arising out of Petarwar P.S. Case No.74 of 2024, corresponding to G.R. Case No.465 of 2024, registered under Section 376DB, 302, 201 of Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from the Sexual Offences Act, later on charge sheet has been submitted under Section 376D, 302, 201 of IPC and under Section 6 POCSO Act, now pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge – III, Bokaro.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the name of the petitioner has transpired in the confessional statement of the co-accused and the DNA profile of the co-accused was found matching.
4. The learned counsel for the opposite party State has opposed the prayer and submitted that the petitioner has confessed his guilt and thereafter it has come that Reena Devi, the mother of the deceased and the petitioner were arrested and the occurrence has happened as the victim used to create obstacle in the meeting and talking between Reena Devi and the petitioner.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence this bail
2026:JHHC:6829 2
application is rejected.
6. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:13.03.2026 Saurav
Date of Uploading:13.03.2026