2026:JHHC:12188 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 2726 of 2026 XXX … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Ms. Juhi Kumari, Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate --- 03/27.04.2026 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 28.09.2025 in connection with Khukhra P.S. Case No. 19 of 2025 corresponding to the Special POCSO Case No. 154 of 2025, for the alleged offence registered under Sections 96 of the B.N.S. and under Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act pending in the court of learned Special Judge-POCSO Act, Giridih. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the son-in-law of the informant of the case and the petitioner was living along with his wife and children in his in-laws’ place and it has been alleged that the petitioner had taken away his sister-in-law (Saali) to Karnataka. His sister-in-law, who is 15 years of age, has alleged that the petitioner had put vermillion in her head and established sexual relationship with her in Karnataka. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. She submits that there is no clear report of sexual assault, so far as the medical examination report is concerned and also submits that the charge has already been framed on 02.01.2026 and out of 11 witnesses as per the impugned order dated 28.01.2026 no witnesses were examined. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the statement of the 2026:JHHC:12188 2 victim has been placed on record and the victim has fully supported the allegation against the petitioner. He has submitted that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner and the medical examination was conducted after about 6 days from the alleged incident. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that there is direct and specific allegation made against the petitioner supported by the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 7. The instant bail application is accordingly rejected. 8. However, the State is directed to ensure prompt production of witnesses. 9. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution as well as Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance. 10. Let a copy of this be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX/E-mail’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 27.04.2026 Rakesh/- Uploaded on:-28.04.2026