2026:JHHC:10152 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 1767 of 2026 Lakshman Murmu, Son of Nimushar Murmu … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, Advocate --- 04/9th April 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Karmatar P.S. Case No. 101/2025 corresponding to Spl. POCSO Case No. 03/2026 for the offence registered under Section 115(2), 65(1) of B.N.S. and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge 1st, Jamtara. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner is named in the FIR and there is direct allegation, but there is apparent conflicting statement in the FIR itself. He submits that on the one hand, the father of the victim stated that the victim was not in full conscious state and the informant had picked up the victim from the under construction house and on the other hand, the victim has stated that she herself came back. He submits that the victim cannot be said to be a sterling witness whose statement can be believed fully. He has also submitted that as per medical report, there is no injury. 3. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner and the victim was only 14 years of age. 4. To this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case is at the stage of evidence, but not even single witness has been examined so far. 2026:JHHC:10152 2 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the serious nature of direct allegation against the petitioner and the trial has already commenced, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is rejected. 6. However, the State is directed to ensure prompt production of the witnesses during trial. 7. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Director, Prosecution as well as Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure prompt production of the witnesses on the dates as may be fixed by the learned trial court. 8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 09.04.2026 Uploaded On: 09.04.2026 Mukul/-