SANDEEP KUMAR CHOUDHARY ALIAS SANDEEP KUMAR CHAUDHARI v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
B.A./2864/2026 · 2026-04-30
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 8039 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 8039 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:JHHC:12791
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 2864 of 2026
Sandeep Kumar Choudhary @ Sandeep Kumar Chaudhari, son of Satanarayan Chaudhari
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, APP
---
03/30.04.2026
Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 06.01.2026 in connection with POCSO Case No. 22 of 2026 arising out of Hussainabad P.S. Case No. 04 of 2026, registered under Sections 126(2), 64, 76 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and under sections 4 and 8 of POCSO Act, now pending in the court of learned Exclusive Special Judge, POCSO Act, Palamau at Daltonganj.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the age of the victim, as alleged, is 16 years. The charge has been framed on 10.03.2026 and there are only 5 witnesses, but no witness has been examined so far. The learned counsel has submitted that he would be satisfied if the trial is expedited.
4.
Learned counsel for the opposite party- State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner. However, he submits that there is no impediment in production of witnesses.
5. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the direct allegation against the petitioner supported by statement of the victim recorded under section 183 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita which has been placed on record, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected.
2026:JHHC:12791
2
6. However, the State is directed to ensure that the witnesses are promptly produced before the learned court.
7.
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.
8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:30.04.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:04.05.2026