2026:JHHC:10182 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 11719 of 2025 Ram Pravesh Ojha @ Dukhan Ojha, son of late Dwarika Ojha. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Victim … … Opposite Parties --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhay Kr. Chaturvedy, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Bandana Sinha, APP --- 05/09.04.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 07.02.2025 in connection with Tandwa P.S. Case No.16 of 2025, corresponding to POCSO Case No.27 of 2025, registered under Sections 96, 64 3 (5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 4 of POCSO Act and Section 3 (1) (c ), 3 (1) (x) of Schedule Caste Schedule Tribe Prevention of Atrocities Act, now pending in the court of learned Special Judge, POCSO Act cases Chatra. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 07.02.2025 and charge was framed on 10.06.2025 but the trial has not yet completed. He has submitted that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected earlier in B.A. No. 3537 of 2025 vide order dated 09.09.2025. 4. The learned counsel then referred to the case diary at paragraphs 61 and 62 and submits that the landlady, in whose house the victim was alleged to have been kept and repeatedly raped by the petitioner, has not supported the case of rape, although the victim was there for some time. The learned counsel submits that the other witnesses have also not supported the prosecution case. 5. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that the victim was taken away and kept for one week and was raped repeatedly. 6. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, this Court 2026:JHHC:10182 2 finds that as per the impugned order dated 12.11.2025, 2 out of 9 witnesses were examined. 7. The bail application of the petitioner was rejected on merit earlier on 09.09.2025 and there is no doubt that the trial is in progress. In aforesaid circumstances, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 8. However, the State is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses are promptly produced before the court. 9. The learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution and also 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:09.04.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:09.04.2026