2026:JHHC:12967 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No.400 of 2025 Victim … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Arun Kumar, son of Raju Bhuiyan, resident of village Sijua, P.O. Sijua, P.S. Jogta, District Dhanbad … … Opposite Parties --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Praveen Shankar Prasad Advocate For the Opposite Party No.2: Mr. Anand Kumar Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Manoj Kr. Ram, Advocate --- 07/01.05.2026 This petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 12.11.2024 passed in B.A. No.9331 of 2024 whereby opposite party no.2 was granted bail in connection with Sessions Trial No.435 of 2024 arising out of Jogta P.S. Case No.25 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. No.1423 of 2024 registered for offence under Section 366 (A) and 376 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 8 and 12 of POCSO Act, which is said to be pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge III Dhanbad. 2. The learned counsel submits that from perusal of the bail order dated 12.11.2024, it was submitted that the parties have settled their dispute and the petitioner was to solemnize marriage with the daughter of the informant very soon. He submits that after bail was granted, the accused refused to marry, and therefore, a petition for cancellation of bail has been filed. 3. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has referred to the bail order and submitted that it was submitted by the learned counsel for the informant himself that the parties have settled their dispute and marriage between the accused and daughter of the informant will be solemnized very soon. There was no such consent or submission recorded on behalf of the accused. He submits that no case for cancellation of bail is made out. 2026:JHHC:12967 2 4. Considering the aforesaid submissions, this Court finds that in paragraph 5, it was the counsel for the informant, who had made the following submission in B.A. No. 9331 of 2024: “5. Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the Informant, submitted that the parties have settled their dispute and marriage between the petitioner and the daughter of the Informant will be solemnized very soon.” 5. The bail order does not reveal that any such submission with regard to marriage was made on behalf of the accused. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no case for recall of the bail order or cancellation of bail order has been made out. 7. This petition is accordingly dismissed. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Saurav/-