2026:JHHC:10305 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 1070 of 2026 Dhona Marandi, son of Sufal Marandi … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Anup Kumar Agarwal, Advocate For the Opp. Party : --- 04/10th April 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Sundarpahari P.S. Case No. 32/2025 corresponding to Special (POCSO) Case No. 66/2025 for the offence registered under Section 70(2) of BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Special Judge (POCSO), Godda. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 08.06.2025 and has been falsely implicated in this case. The learned counsel submits that the co-accused, namely, Edward Marandi @ Edwad Marandi has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in B.A. No. 9419/2025 vide order dated 10.12.2025 and another co- accused, namely, Rajesh Tudu has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in B.A. No. 644/2026 vide order dated 08.04.2026. However, the learned counsel has fairly submitted that FSL report is not in favor of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail. 4. The statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of BNSS has been placed by the learned counsel for the State, upon perusal of which, this Court finds that she has supported the allegation. 2026:JHHC:10305 2 5. At this, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that out of eight prosecution witnesses, four witnesses have already been examined and all four witnesses have turned hostile including the victim and the informant. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances, particularly the FSL report, which even according to the learned counsel for the petitioner shows some connection of the victim with the petitioner and on this count the case of the petitioner stands on different footing as compared to that of the co- accused, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is rejected. 7. However, the State is directed to ensure prompt production of the witnesses during trial. 8. 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 date as may be fixed by the learned trial court. 9. Learned counsel for the State is also directed to produce the FSL report before the learned court. 10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 10.04.2026 Uploaded On: 13.04.2026 Mukul/-