Jharkhand High Court
B.A./9141/2026 of BANDHU OROAN Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 30 September 2026
) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9141 of 2026 Bandhu Oroan aged about 26 years, son of Mahu Oraon, Resident of village-Jonjro Patra Toli, P.O. Jingi, Police Station-Kuru, Dist. Lohardaga … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp.
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:29449 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9141 of 2026
Bandhu Oroan aged about 26 years, son of Mahu Oraon, Resident of village-Jonjro Patra Toli, P.O. Jingi, Police Station-Kuru, Dist. Lohardaga
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
…
… Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhay Kumar Chaturvedy, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P.
---
04/30.09.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Lohardaga Mahila P.S. Case No. 43 of 2024, for the offences registered under Sections 64(1), 351(3), 115(2) of the B.N.S. 2023, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, POCSO, Lohardaga.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that bail application of the petitioner was rejected earlier in B.A. No. 1687 of 2025 vide order dated 06.03.2025 by observing that on 07.07.2024 the petitioner is alleged to have raped the prosecutrix who is a minor girl. The learned counsel has then referred to the Annexure-3 which is a marksheet issued by Jharkhand Academic Council with respect to the victim showing the date of birth as 05.10.2005. The learned counsel submits that considering the date of birth as recorded in the certificate the victim was major on the date of occurrence. The learned counsel further submits that he has annexed the deposition of four witnesses who have been examined, but he is not aware as to how many witnesses have been examined so far. He submits that there are altogether 09 charge sheeted witnesses.
4. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the trial is going on and there is direct allegation against the petitioner and the victim has supported the prosecution case, in such circumstances, the petitioner may not be
( 2026:JHHC:29449 ) 2
enlarged on bail at this stage. He submits that he has no objection if some observation is made for expeditious trial of the petitioner.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the direct allegation made against the petitioner in the FIR itself and the trial is going on, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.
6. However, the State is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses are promptly produced before the court so that the trial is taken to a logical end.
7. The learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned District and also to the Director, Prosecution to ensure compliance.
8. If the witnesses are not produced in spite of this order, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after six months.
9. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through FAX/e-mail.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 30.09.2026 Uploaded on 30.09.2026 Binit/