Jharkhand High Court
B.A./9178/2026 of CHANDAN RAM ALIAS CHANDAN KUMAR RANA Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 30 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9178 of 2026 Chandan Rana @ Chandan Kumar Rana aged about 23 years Son of Prabhu Rana, Resident of Village Barwabad, P.O – Mandro & P.S- Deori, District-Giridih, Jharkhand … … Petitioner Versus The State of
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:29398
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 9178 of 2026
Chandan Rana @ Chandan Kumar Rana aged about 23 years Son of Prabhu Rana, Resident of Village Barwabad, P.O – Mandro & P.S- Deori, District-Giridih, Jharkhand … … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mritunjay Chaudhary, Advocate
For the State
: Mr. Gautam Rakesh, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Vineet Sinha, Advocate
---
03/30.09.2026
Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. Mr. Vineet Sinha, Advocate, appears on behalf of the informant of the case and undertakes to file Vakalatnama during the course of the day.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 07.07.2026 in connection with POCSO Case No. 146 of 2026 arising out of Hirodih P.S. Case No. 97 of 2026, registered under Sections 62, 64(1) and 329(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 8 & 12 of the POCSO Act, now pending in the court of learned Special Judge, POCSO Act at Giridih.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that as per the allegation, the petitioner entered into the house of the minor victim and tried to outrage her modesty and commit rape upon her. The learned counsel submits that it is only a case of attempt.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner is in custody since 07.07.2026 and charge sheet has already been filed, cognizance has been taken, but so far charge has not been framed.
6. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail. He has submitted that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner. He has also submitted that the victim is yet to be examined before the learned court and the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail
2026:JHHC:29398
2
at this stage.
7. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the direct allegation against the petitioner, who happens to be the neighbour of the victim, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage as the victim is yet to be examined before the learned court. Accordingly, this bail application is 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:30.09.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:01.10.2026