2026:JHHC:12364 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3557 of 2026 Pitar Hansda, aged about 19 years, S/o-Barnawas Hansda @ Varnabas Hansda … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Patiush Lala, Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, Addl. P.P. --- 06/28.04.2026 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 01.04.2025 in connection with POCSO Case No. 38 of 2025 arising out of Ranga P.S. Case No. 13 of 2025, for the alleged offence registered under Sections 64(1), 96, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Corresponding Sections 376(1), 366(A), 34 of the Indian Penal Code) and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 (Charge framed under Section 64(1), 96, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Corresponding Section 376(1), 366(A), 34 of the Indian Penal Code) and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 pending in the court of learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Sahibganj. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected vide order dated 17.09.2025 in B.A. No. 7979 of 2025 and the trial court was to expedite the trial. However, he submits that the charge has been framed on 24.01.2026, but no witness has been produced so far. He also submits that the next date in the trial court is 07.05.2026. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected on merits and there is direct allegation against the 2026:JHHC:12364 2 petitioner. However, he has fairly submitted that there can be no reason for non-production of witnesses and has submitted that the trial may be expedite. Since, the next date in the trial court is 07.05.2026, the witness shall be produced. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the direct allegation against the petitioner and that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected earlier, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. 6. The instant bail application is accordingly rejected. 7. However, the State is directed to ensure prompt production of witnesses. 8. 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. 9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX/E-mail’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 28.04.2026 Rakesh/- Uploaded on:-29.04.2026