Jharkhand High Court
B.A./9177/2026 of BHUGLU TIGGA @ BHAGLU TIGGA Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 30 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9177 of 2026 Bhuglu Tigga @ Bhaglu Tigga, aged about 46 years, Son of Jalha Tigga, resident of Kathchawh, P.O & P.S- Mandar, Distt.- Ranchi … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ---
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:29396
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 9177 of 2026
Bhuglu Tigga @ Bhaglu Tigga, aged about 46 years, Son of Jalha Tigga, resident of Kathchawh, P.O & P.S- Mandar, Distt.- Ranchi
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Ms. Pinky Shaw, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, APP
---
05/30.09.2026
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 POCSO Case No.149 of 2025 arising out of Mandar P.S. Case No. 97 of 2025 registered under sections 96 and 65(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under sections 4, 6, 8 & 12 of POCSO Act, 2012, now pending in the court of learned A.J.C. IV -cum-Spl. Judge POCSO Act, Ranchi.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he is in custody since 17.08.2025. She submits that out of 11 witnesses, only 06 witnesses have been examined so far.
4. Learned counsel for the state has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner and the informant is the eyewitness to the occurrence. He submits that as per the impugned order which is dated 03.11.2025, the victim, aged five years, has also supported the allegation. The informant had seen the petitioner and the victim in naked condition in the room.
5. Considering the direct allegation against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected.
6. However, the State is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses are promptly produced before the learned court.
2026:JHHC:29396
2
7. 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.
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