2026:JHHC:10316 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 1820 of 2026 Chandan Marandi, Son of Barasa Maradi … … Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Prabhash Ch. Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Nawin Kr. Singh, APP For the Informant : Mr. Sumit Prakash, Advocate --- 04/10.04.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 12.07.2025 in connection with Tisri P.S. Case No. 60 of 2025 corresponding to POCSO Case No. 109 of 2025, registered under Section 96 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and subsequently, charge has been framed under sections 96 and 64(1) of BNS and section 4 of the POCSO Act. He submits that the case is now pending in the court of learned Special Judge POCSO Act, Giridih. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge-sheet has been submitted in the present case under sections 96 and 64(1) of BNS and section 4 of the POCSO Act. He submits that the First Information Report was lodged by the father of the victim stating that the victim is minor aged 16 years. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody since 12.07.2025 and has been falsely implicated in this case. 4. Learned counsel for the informant, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that out of five witnesses, three witnesses have already been examined and the next date in the trial before the learned court is 20.04.2026. He has also submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner in the First Information Report and earlier also, similar kind of act was done by the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has submitted that the State would ensure that the remaining witnesses are produced before the learned court including on 20.04.2026. 2026:JHHC:10316 2 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the petitioner is named in the First Information Report and there is direct allegation against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 7. However, State is directed to ensure that the witnesses are promptly produced before the learned court. 8. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution and also to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance. 9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:10.04.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:14.04.2026