Jharkhand High Court
B.A./9252/2026 of SUNIL SHARMA Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 5 October 2026
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9252 of 2026 Sunil Sharma, aged about 22 years, S/o Birendra Sharma, Resident of Village Naya Nagar, P.O. + P.S. Mahagama, District Godda … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM:
2026:JHHC:29645
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 9252 of 2026
Sunil Sharma, aged about 22 years, S/o Birendra Sharma, Resident of Village Naya Nagar, P.O. + P.S. Mahagama, District Godda
…
…
Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
…
… Opp. Party
---
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner
: Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, Advocate
For the Opp. Party
: Ms. Lily Sahay, Advocate
---
02/5th October 2026
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. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Mahagama P.S. Case No. 145/2025 (Special POCSO Case No. 58/2026) for the offence registered under Section 96/3(5) of BNS, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st – cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Godda.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 23.07.2026 having no criminal antecedent. It has been alleged that the petitioner is associate of Pappu Yadav, who had taken away the minor girl to Gujarat and performed marriage. The statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of BNSS be taken into consideration, where she has not made any allegation against the petitioner. The charge-sheet has already been submitted and cognizance has been taken.
3. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State though has opposed the prayer for bail, but has not disputed the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the cognizance has already been taken, the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and the victim in her statement recorded under
2026:JHHC:29645
Section 183 of BNSS has not made any allegation against the petitioner, the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty-Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge- 1st – cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Godda in connection with Mahagama P.S. Case No. 145/2025, subject to the following conditions: -
(i) One of the bailors would be the present pairvikar of the petitioner.
(ii) The other bailor should be his close relative.
(iii) The petitioner will attend the court on each and every date and on account of his single default, the learned court shall cancel the bail bond furnished by the petitioner.
(iv) The petitioner would deposit a self-attested copy of his Aadhar Card along with his Mobile Number before the learned court below, which he shall not change during the pendency of the case without prior permission of the court.
(v) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the proceedings before the learned court below.
5. The instant bail application is allowed with the aforesaid conditions.
6. Let a copy of this order along with a copy of the affidavit filed with the bail petition be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e- mail/FAX’.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Dated: 05.10.2026
Uploaded On: 06.10.2026
Mukul/-