B.A./9305/2026 of ROYAL HEMBRAM @ NARAN HEMBRAM Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 6 October 2026

( 2026:JHHC:29929 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

B.A. No. 9305 of 2026

Royal Hembram @ Naran Hembram, aged about 31 years, son of Deben Hembrom, resident of Village-Baikunthpur, P.O.-Bhandaru, P.S.-Chakulia, District-East Singhbhum (Jharkhand)

… … Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---

For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Das, Advocate

For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, Advocate

---

02/06.10.2026

Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 25.07.2026 in connection with Chakulia P.S. Case No. 44 of 2026, registered under Section 75(1), 76/3(5) of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 4/8 of POCSO Act and Section 6 of Witch Practices Prevention Act, now pending in the court of learned Special Judge, POCSO at Jamshedpur.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner age is 31 years and he is in custody since 25.07.2026 on the allegation made by the victim herself in the F.I.R. of the present case. Learned counsel has further submitted that though there are very serious allegations against the petitioner, but the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He has submitted that as per the F.I.R, involved in this case, the victim had gone with one Vimal Murmu on 29.06.2026 and she was brought back home on 17.07.2026 and thereafter, her mother and sister had taken her to ojha, who is the present petitioner, and he committed certain acts on her by stating that she was poisoned by the influence of Vimal Murmu and ultimately, she somehow could rescue herself and called Vimal Murmu and went with him.

4. Learned counsel has referred to the F.I.R. which has been ( 2026:JHHC:29929 )

2

lodged by the father of the victim on 24.07.2026 stating that the victim was missing from 16.07.2026 and he has alleged that Vimal Murmu had enticed her and taken her away. He submits that another case has been registered in which bail application of Vimal Murmu has been rejected and he was in judicial custody since 22.07.2026. Learned counsel submits that the sequence of events reveals that the petitioner has been falsely implicated.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there are directed allegation against the petitioner.

6. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the fact that there is direct allegation against the petitioner made by the victim herself, wherein she has stated that she knew Vimal Murmu for last four years as a friend and she had gone to his house and she was brought back home on 17.07.2026 from where her maternal uncle took her to Pakudia and she stayed there. On the next day, her mother and sister took her to the petitioner and the petitioner told that she had ghost on her body and performed puja and then he told that she had poison in her body and removed her clothes from her body and applied oil in her body and bit her body with teeth and after that she return from there to Chakulia at night. Thereafter, she made a message to Vimal Murmu and went to his sister’s house.

7. The impugned order reveals that upon her medical examination, multiple bite marks were found all over her body. This Court finds that there are serious and direct allegation against the petitioner made by the minor victim herself. This Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected.

8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:06.10.2026 Nandini Date of Uploading: