2026:JHHC:5030 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.543 of 2025 …. Jai Prakash Lohra @ Prakash Lohra aged about 17 years son of Dara Singh Lohra resident of village-Julumtand, Satbahni, P.O.+P.S.-Adityapur, District- Seraikella (Kharsawan) represented through her mother and natural guardian namely Sabi Devi wife of Dara Singh Lohra resident of Village-Julumtand, P.O.- Gamharia, P.S.-Adityapur, District- Seraikella (Kharsawan) ……Appellant Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. Victim X ……Respondents ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Appellant : Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Santosh Kr. Shukla, APP …… Order No.06/19th February 2026 1. This Criminal appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant by challenging the impugned order dated 30.04.2025 in M.C.R.A. No.482 of 2025 by Chaudhary Ahsan Moiz, learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella by which the prayer of bail of the appellant has been rejected, in connection Children Case No.05/2024 arising out of Adityapur P.S. Case No.348/2023 instituted for the offences under Sections 376, 417, 504, 447 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal and not sustainable in eye of law. It is submitted that the appellant is innocent and has not committed any offence. It is submitted that the appellant has not committed anything wrong on the pretext of marriage. It is submitted that the victim girl has been examined as PW-1 and she has not supported the prosecution case. It is 2026:JHHC:5030 2 submitted that the appellant is in custody since 03.02.2024 and hence he may be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer of bail of the appellant. It is submitted that there is a direct allegation against the appellant for committing rape upon the minor victim girl and hence the prayer of bail of the appellant may be rejected. 5. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and from perusal of the records of this case, it appears from the letter No.34/2026 sent by Sri Braj Kishore Pandey No.2, learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella that that six chargesheet witnesses out of nine chargesheet witnesses have been examined so far during trial and the Investigation Officer is yet to be examined. 6. It appears from the letter that the Trial is in progress. 7. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to grant the bail to the petitioner at this stage Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. 8. Thus, the Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.543 of 2025 is, hereby, dismissed. 9. However, the learned Trial Court is directed to conclude the Trial expeditiously as early as possible within the period of four months from today. 10. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Dated 19.02.2026 Nishant/-