2026:JHHC:9324 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 621 of 2026 Raghvendra Harijan @ Raghvendra Khanappa Harijan, Raghvendra Kanappa Harijan, aged about 27 years, Son of Khanappa Harijan, Resident of Mudhod Road, Mayur Bar and Restaurant, Kalginkop, P.O. & P.S. Kalginkoppa, District-Uttara Kannada (Karnataka). … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. Ajay Kr. Pathak, Advocate --- 05/02.04.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 20.08.2025 in connection with Special POCSO Case No. 88 of 2025 arising out of Barkagaon P.S. Case No. 177 of 2025, for the alleged offence registered under Sections 137(2), 87 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, III-cum-Spl. Judge, POCSO, Hazaribag. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the victim was approaching 17 years of age on the date of occurrence and she fell in love with the petitioner and they have been roaming around at different places. He has further submitted that the charge has been framed on 12.11.2025 and some of the witnesses have already been examined. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that there is serious allegation against the petitioner, the petitioner belongs to Karnataka and as per the allegation the petitioner and the victim got in contact through ‘social media’. He has further submitted that the petitioner is 27 years of age and the victim has supported the allegation in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS. He has also submitted 2026:JHHC:9324 2 that the allegation are very serious and the victim has been recovered from Karnataka as apparent from paragraph 43 of the case diary. The date of birth of the victim is 16.12.2008. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the serious nature of allegation and the victim was taken away by the petitioner, who was recovered from Karnataka, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 6. However, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial has commenced and few witnesses have been examined, learned counsel for the State is directed to ensure prompt production of witnesses. 7. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution as well as Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance. 8. The instant bail application is accordingly rejected. 9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX/E-mail’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 02.04.2026 Rakesh/- Uploaded on:-03.04.2026