Jharkhand High Court
B.A./8630/2026 of PANKAJ PANDIT Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 7 October 2026
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8630 of 2026 Pankaj Pandit, aged about 20 years, Son of Niranjan Kumar @ Niranjan Pandit @ Niranjan Kumhar, resident of village – Gaypahadi (Gaipahadi), Post Office Barkatha, P.S. Barkatha, District Hazaribag … …
2026:JHHC:30039
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 8630 of 2026
Pankaj Pandit, aged about 20 years, Son of Niranjan Kumar @ Niranjan Pandit @ Niranjan Kumhar, resident of village – Gaypahadi (Gaipahadi), Post Office Barkatha, P.S. Barkatha, District Hazaribag
…
…
Petitioner
Versus
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Victim
… … Opp. Parties
--- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner
: Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State
: Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey, Advocate
For the Informant
: Mr. Santosh Kumar Soni, Advocate
---
06/7th October 2026
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Barkatha P.S. Case No. 87/2026 for the offence registered under Section 65(1) of BNS and Section 4 & 6 of POCSO Act, said to have been pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV-cum-Spl. Judge, POCSO, Hazaribag.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was love affair between the petitioner and the victim and that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The husband of the victim, who was living elsewhere in Bombay, tried to call her, but she did not answer the phone, and thereafter, the sister-in-law of the victim told him that the petitioner had raped the victim. The learned counsel submits that there is a delay of 17 days in lodging the FIR and the charge-sheet has already been submitted.
3. Learned counsel for the State as well as the Informant have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner and the FIR was lodged when the husband of the victim came back.
2026:JHHC:30039
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, this Court finds that there is a direct allegation against the petitioner of committing rape upon the victim. It further appears from the case diary that as per the school record, the date of birth of the victim is 01.01.2011. The charge-sheet has been submitted for the alleged offence under Sections 65(1) and 123 of BNS and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
5. Since the material witnesses are yet to be examined before the learned court and there is direct allegation of committing rape against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Hence, this bail application is hereby rejected.
6. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Dated: 07.10.2026
Uploaded On: 08.10.2026
Mukul/-