Jharkhand High Court
B.A./9017/2026 of MD. AFTAB MANSOOR @ MD. AFTAB MANSUR Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 28 September 2026
) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9017 of 2026 Md. Aftab Mansoor @ Md. Aftab Mansur, aged about 20 years, Son of Mohammad Firoj Mansur, Resident of Village-Karan Tola, Gopalpur, P.O.-Gopalpur, P.S.-Thakurgangti, District-Godda, Jharkhand … … Petitioner
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:29125 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 9017 of 2026
Md. Aftab Mansoor @ Md. Aftab Mansur, aged about 20 years, Son of Mohammad Firoj Mansur, Resident of Village-Karan Tola, Gopalpur, P.O.-Gopalpur, P.S.-Thakurgangti, District-Godda, Jharkhand
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
02/28.09.2026
Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Nobody appears on behalf of the Opposite. Party-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 05.07.2026 in connection with Thakurgangti P.S. Case No. 23 of 2026, registered under Sections 64(1), 62, 75(2), 79, 351(2) & 352 of B.N.S., 2023, Sections 4, 8 & 18 of POCSO Act and Section 66(E) of Information Technology Act, 2000, now pending in the court of learned Special Judge, POCSO, Godda.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case; the petitioner and the victim were in talking terms. Learned counsel has further submitted that charge-sheet has been already been submitted, but he is not aware under which Sections, the charge-sheet has been submitted.
5. After hearing the learned counsels for the petitioner and considering the direct allegation against the petitioner, and as per the impugned order itself , the victim was minor on the date of the alleged occurrence and she had fully supported the allegation against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on ( 2026:JHHC:29125 )
2
bail. Hence, this bail application is hereby rejected.
6. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:28.09.2026 Nandini Date of Uploading: