2026:JHHC:7291 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 2109 of 2026 Jitendra Singh @ Bajrangi Ji, aged about 28 years, Son of Dashrath Singh, Resident of Village- Samariyatand, Tupukhurd, P.O. and P.S. Latehar, District- Latehar … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Ms. Sonal Pandey, Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Mahato, Advocate --- 04/17.03.2026 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 06.03.2025 in connection with Latehar P.S. Case No. 24 of 2025 corresponding to Special POCSO Case No. 17 of 2025, for the alleged offence registered under Sections 64(1), 62, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 8, 12 of POCSO Act pending in the court of learned Special Judge, POCSO, Latehar. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and there is land dispute between the parties. She has also submitted that the First Information Report was lodged on 26.01.2025 with respect to the alleged incident dated 24.01.2025. She has also submitted that there is no medical examination and the charge has already been framed. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer for bail. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the one of the victims has filed the case and there is direct allegation against the petitioner. It has also been alleged in the FIR that the informant and his sister aged 12 years could somehow escape from the clutches of the named accused and it has also been mentioned in the FIR that the victims were under the fear from the 2026:JHHC:7291 2 petitioner. The impugned order reveals that the statement of the victim has been recorded under Section 183 of B.N.S.S. and the victim has fully supported the case of the prosecution. Considering the direct allegation made against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 6. The instant bail application is rejected accordingly. 7. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX/E-mail’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 17.03.2026 Rakesh/- Uploaded on:-18.03.2026