2026:JHHC:11536 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 837 of 2026 Taslim Ansari, Son of Anwar Ansari … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Victim … … Opposite Parties --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kr. Singh, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Satish Kr. Keshri, APP --- 06/21.04.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 09.10.2025 in connection with Spl. POCSO Case No. 22 of 2020 arising out of Gorhar P.S. Case No. 85 of 2018, registered under Sections 366(A)/341/323/504/506/376/295(A) of Indian Penal Code and section 8 of POCSO Act, now pending in the court of learned Additional Session Judge-III-Cum-Spl. Judge, POCSO, Hazaribagh. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and although in the First Information Report it has been alleged that the victim was minor, but as per the age assessment done, the victim was 18 to 19 years of age. He has also submitted that the victim, in her statement under section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, has not made any allegation of rape. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that there was love affair between the petitioner and the victim. The petitioner is 37 years of age as mentioned in the bail application filed before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that as recorded in paragraph 53 of the case-diary, the date of birth of the victim is 01.01.2002 and accordingly, the victim was a minor. He has also 2026:JHHC:11536 2 submitted that the statement of the victim clearly reveals that the petitioner was after her and she had also to change her school and she had supported the allegation against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State has also submitted that the petitioner remained absconder and surrendered before the court only on 09.10.2025. 6. To this, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that charge has been framed on 01.12.2025, but no witness has been examined so far. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the statement of the victim recorded under section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure and considering the fact that the petitioner has remained absconder, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected. 8. However, the State is directed to ensure that the witnesses are promptly produced before the learned court. 9. 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. 10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:21.04.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:21.04.2026