2026:JHHC:8867 Page | 1 INTHE HIGH COURT OFJHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 2453 of 2026 --------- Mahendra Tiu, aged about 25 years, S/o Jagdish Tiu, R/o Village Kaanki, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa Mufassil, District West Singhbhum. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party --------- CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Gaurav Priyadashi, Advocate : Ms. Twinkle Rani, Advocate : Mr. Anup Kr. Yadav, Advocate : Mr. Piyush Pandey, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, APP ---------- 02/Dated:25th March, 2026 1. The instantapplication has been filed under Sections483 &484 ofBNSS, 2023 forgrant of bail in connection with Chaibasa Mufassil P.S. Case No.186 of 2025 registered under Sections 70(2), 351(2), 351(3), 352 of the BNS 2023 and Sections 4/8 of the POCSO Act, 2012 pending in the court of learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-Spl Judge POCSO Act Cases, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa. 2. The prosecution story in brief as transpires from the written applicationdated 18.11.2025 of the informant who happens to be the brother-in-law (Jija) of the victim, on the basis of which the Chaibasa Mufassil P.S. Case No.186 of 2025 has been registered against the accused persons including present petitioner U/s 70(2), 351(2), 351(3), 352 of the B.N.S. 2023 and U/s 04 and 08 of the POCSO Act 2012, is like that that the victim is a minor girl 2026:JHHC:8867 Page | 2 aged about 17 years and the sister-in-law of the informant and had visited his house as a guest. It is further stated that on the date and the time of the occurrence that is on 15.11.2025 at about 11:00 P.M. the said sister-in-law of the informant who had gone to visit the fair had left the fair and moved outside the fair to get herself eased from the call of nature and meanwhile the accused persons including present petitioner caught hold of her and forcefully took her to the place of the occurrence that is the deserted place on the banks of Murum river and both of them simultaneously committed rape with her. It is further stated that the accused persons including the present petitioner left the place of the occurrence after giving effect to the occurrence, threatening the victim not to disclose the occurrence to anyone. It is further stated that the next day in the morning the victim reached home and narrated the incident but due to shame and being shocked the information of the occurrence could not be given to the P.S. till 18.11.2025. Thereafter the case was instituted against the accusedU/s 70(2), 351, 351(3), 352 of the B.N.S. 2023 and U/s 04 / 08 of the POCSO Act 2012. 3. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that merely on the basis of the false allegation, the petitioner has been implicated in this present case. 2026:JHHC:8867 Page | 3 4. It has been submitted that the date of occurrence is described to be of 15.11.2025 whereas F.I.R. was lodged on 18.11.2025 but reason of delay inlodging F.I.R. has not been assigned. 5. Submission has also been made that the petitioner is having no criminal antecedents and he is languishing in judicial custody since 19.11.2025, as such, the present petitioner may also be enlarged on bail. 6. While on the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the direct and specific allegation leveled against the petitioner for having committed gang rape withthe minor victim girl and considering the nature, gravity and seriousness of the offence case has been instituted U/s 70(2), 351, 351(3), 352 of the B.N.S. 2023 and U/s 04 / 08 of the POCSO Act 2012. 7. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has also gone through the FIR wherefrom it is evident thatpetitioner is F.I.R. named accused persons in this case for the offences U/s 70(2), 351, 351(3), 352 of the B.N.S. 2023 and U/s 04 / 08 of the POCSO Act 2012. In the FIR it has specifically been alleged about the involvement of the present petitioner in committing gang rape with the victim on the date, time and the place of the occurrence that is on 15.11.2025 at about 11:00 A.M. at a deserted place on the banks of the river Murum. 2026:JHHC:8867 Page | 4 8. On the basis of the discussion made hereinabove and further taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case,nature, gravity and seriousness of the allegations leveled against the present petitioner U/s 70(2) of BNSS and under the Section 4/8 of POCSO Act,this Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of bail to the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands rejected. 10. It is made clear that any observation made herein will not prejudice the case of the appellant in course of trial and view as expressed by this Court is only limited to the instant bail application. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) 25th March, 2026 Samarth