2026:JHHC:5751 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.557 of 2026 ----- Jitendra Kumar Gupta @ Bittu, aged about 35 years, son of Yogendra Kumar Gupta, resident of Village-313 Dhanbad Road, P.O. and P.S.-Barhi, District-Hazaribag. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party ------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD ------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sinha, A.P.P. ------ Order No. 02/Dated 25th February, 2026 1. The instant application has been filed under Sections 483 and 484 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking therein direction to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail in connection with POCSO Case No.104 of 2025 arising out of Barhi P.S. Case No.428 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 96 of B.N.S. and Section 12 of the POCSO Act, pending in the court of learned Additional District Judge-II-cum-Special Judge, POCSO Act, Hazaribagh. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence and he has falsely been implicated in this case. 3. It has further been submitted that four months prior the accused and the victim girl were already intercepted at Banaras and no case has been instituted in this regard and petitioner and victim when were present in Barhi P.S. on 10.11.2025, this case has been instituted. 2026:JHHC:5751 2 4. Learned counsel has further submitted that due to previous dispute this case has been instituted by the informant. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the victim was travailing alone in the bus and accused never established physical contact with the victim. 6. It has further been submitted that accused had no physical contact or communication with victim and there is no application of Section 12 of POCSO Act. 7. It has been submitted that there is no criminal antecedent against the accused petitioner. 8. While on the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. 9. It has been submitted that the father of the victim/informant in his re-statement has supported the prosecution case and has stated that petitioner has kidnapped her daughter and the victim was missing from 08.11.2025 and recovered on 10.11.2025 on disclosure of this petitioner. 10. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the statement of the victim has been recorded wherein she has stated that she was taking tuition from the petitioner. In March 2025, the petitioner gave her mobile and he had also given assurance to give I-phone. She has further stated that on 08.11.2025 at 7:30 she boarded on Kolkata bus on 2026:JHHC:5751 3 the direction of the petitioner and she left the bus at Rajganj and in the morning on 09.11.2025, she went to Dhanbad bus stand for returning to Ranchi by bus. Later on, the petitioner telephoned the victim and directed to left the bus at Buti More, Ranchi but she reached at Ormanjhi Toll Tax then his father, cousin brother and took her at home. The victim is a minor as her date of birth is 13.02.2008, as per photocopy of birth certificate. 11. Learned State counsel, therefore, has submitted that it is not a fit case for grant of regular bail. 12. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the attributability said to be committed in the First Information Report as also the order by which the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner has been rejected. 13. The victim, in her statement, as referred in the impugned order, has stated that she was taking tuition from the petitioner and the petitioner gave her mobile and he had also given assurance to give I-phone and she had boarded the bus for going to Kolkata on the direction of the petitioner. 14. Thus, from the aforesaid, it appears that the petitioner has allured the victim by presenting her mobile phone and on his direction she boarded the bus for going to Kolkata. 2026:JHHC:5751 4 15. Further, from the order of the learned court by which the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner has been rejected, it appears that the father of the victim/informant in his restatement in para 3 has supported the prosecution case as per FIR and stated that petitioner, accused, kidnapped and trapped the victim in love affairs and victim being the minor was easily trapped by the present petitioner. The other witnesses have also supported the prosecution case. 16. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances as also the fact that the victim was taking tuition from the petitioner and the petitioner, by deviating from the onerous duty of tutoring a student, allured her by giving mobile phone and has taken her away to Kolkata which has been supported by the victim herself in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S. 17. This Court, considering the fact that the nature of allegation is serious and offence alleged to have been committed against the minor, is of the view that the present bail application is to be rejected. 18. Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Date : 25th February, 2026 Birendra/