( 2026:JHHC:4494 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 10609 of 2025 ------ Kaisar Nafis Nawaz @ Sonu Khan @ Kaisar Nafish Nawaz, aged about 29 years, s/o Kaish Khan, r/o-Vill-Kamta, P.S. & P.O.-Chandwa, Dist.-Latehar, Jharkhand … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. XXXX … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Mohit Prakash, Advocate : Mr. Vishal Srivastava, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sinha, Addl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Abhay Kr. Chaturvedy, Advocate : Mr. Kumar Nishant, Advocate ------ Order No.04 Dated- 17.02.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Chandwa P.S. Case No.138 of 2018 (Spl. POCSO Case No.02 of 2019) registered for the offences punishable under sections 366A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and charge has been framed under Section 366A of Indian Penal Code and under Section 17/18 of POCSO Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was earlier granted bail provisionally in B.A. No. 1584 of 2019 but he did not comply with the order of this Court and failed to appear as directed by this Court so, the interim bail was cancelled by this Court and this court directed the petitioner to surrender before the trial court but the petitioner did not appear before the learned trial court in-spite of the direction of this Court. It is then submitted that charge has also been framed against the petitioner but as he was absconding, the trial court not take place. It is further submitted that in the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., the victim has supported the case of the prosecution and the minor victim was enticed away by the petitioner. It is next submitted that the petitioner does not know how many witnesses have been examined so far by the trial court. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. The learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner of absconding on earlier occasion when the bail was granted and after that he was apprehended and trial is going on fast pace. It is next submitted by the learned Addl. P.P. that there is every chance of the trial being disrupted once the petitioner is admitted to bail as there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and also tampering with evidence if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not be admitted to bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner as well as the conduct of the petitioner of absconding after provisional bail was granted to him earlier, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the abovenamed petitioner be admitted to bail at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the abovenamed petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 17.02.2026 Sonu/Gunjan-