Jharkhand High Court
B.A./8399/2026 of MD SALAUDDIN ALIAS SALAUDDIN Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 5 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8399 of 2026 Md. Salauddin @ Salauddin, aged about 61 years, S/o Late Md. Khalil, R/o Village- Gangta, P.O- Nawadih Panari, P.S.- Hunterganj, Distt.- Chatra, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …
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.
2026:JHHC:29663
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 8399 of 2026
Md. Salauddin @ Salauddin, aged about 61 years, S/o Late Md. Khalil, R/o Village- Gangta, P.O- Nawadih Panari, P.S.- Hunterganj, Distt.- Chatra, Jharkhand.
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kr. Choubey, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, APP
---
03/05.10.2026
Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Hunterganj P.S. Case No. 71 of 2026, registered under Sections 65(1), 351(2), 352, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under sections 4 & 6 of POCSO Act, now pending in the court of learned Special Judge (POCSO), Chatra.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 15.05.2026 and charge sheet has already been submitted. He has submitted that there is a delay of 20 days in lodging the First Information Report and the delay has been sought to be explained by stating that the sons of the petitioner had been threatening the victim and the informant of the case. He submits that the sons of the petitioner stay abroad and at the relevant point of time they were not present at the place of occurrence. He submits that since the year, 2025, the sons of the petitioner are living abroad.
4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the victim is just 14 years of age and the petitioner happens to be close relative of the victim (Fufa). He submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner and the victim has supported the allegation even in her statement recorded under Section 183 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. He submits that the victim is yet to be examined and therefore, the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail.
2026:JHHC:29663
2
5. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the fact that the petitioner happens to be close relative of the victim and the victim has supported the allegation in her statement recorded under Section 183 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 coupled with the fact that the victim and her close family members are yet to be examined before the learned court, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, this bail application is rejected.
6. However, the matter relates to POCSO Act and as per the provisions of the POCSO Act, the victim is required to be examined before the learned court within a period of one month from the date of taking cognizance.
7. The state is directed to ensure that the witnesses, including the victim and her close family members, are promptly produced before the learned court.
8. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution and Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance.
9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:05.10.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:08.10.2026