Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5657 (JHR)

BHAGIRATH DAS ALIAS MARUN KUMAR DAS ALIAS BHAGIRATH KUMAR DAS @ MARUN DAS v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./11638/2025 · 2026-04-08

Anubha Rawat Choudhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:9974 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 11638 of 2025 Bhagirath Das @ Marun Kumar Das @ Bhagirath Kumar Das @ Marun Das, son of Rameshwar Ravidas … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Prakash, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, APP --- 04/08.04.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 16.10.2024 in connection with Jamua (Nawdiha) P.S. Case No.195 of 2024, corresponding to POCSO Case No.153/2024, registered under Sections 96 of Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita 2023, charges u/s 87, 64 (2)(m), 65 (1) BNS and 4/5 4(2), 5 (1) / 6 of POCSO Act, has been framed against the petitioner, now pending in the court of learned Special Judge POCSO Act, Giridih. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in B.A. No.2410 of 2025 vide order dated 26.03.2025 and the charge was framed in the month of February 2025, but only one witness has been examined as per the impugned order dated 23.09.2025 and he is not aware regarding the present status of the case. 4. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that there is direct allegation against the petitioner and appropriate order may be passed so that the trial is expedited. 5. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the direct allegation against the petitioner and the bail application of the petitioner having been rejected earlier, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 6. However, the State is directed to ensure that the witnesses are promptly produced before the court. 2026:JHHC:9974 2 7. The learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police and Director, Prosecution of the concerned district to ensure compliance. 8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:08.04.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:09.04.2026