Jharkhand High Court
B.A./8965/2026 of RAJU MANJHI Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 28 September 2026
) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8965 of 2026 1. Raju Manjhi, S/o Suresh Manjhi, aged about-42 years 2. Chunni Devi, W/o Raju Manjhi, aged about-40 years both are Resident of Village-Birsaini, P.O. & P.S.-Pathargama, District-Godda, Jharkhand … …
( 2026:JHHC:29097 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 8965 of 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. Raju Manjhi, S/o Suresh Manjhi, aged about-42 years
2. Chunni Devi, W/o Raju Manjhi, aged about-40 years both are
Resident of Village-Birsaini, P.O. & P.S.-Pathargama, District-Godda,
Jharkhand
… … Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Ms. Mridula Thakur, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Ms. Amrita Kumari, Advocate
---
02/28.09.2026
Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in custody since 08.07.2026 in connection with Pathargama P.S. Case No. 75 of 2026, registered under Section 96, 351(2) and 352/3(5) of BNS, 2023 (charges framed under Sections 96/3(5), 126(2)/3(5), 351(3)/3(5) and 352/3(5) of BNS in Special (POCSO) Case No. 59/2026), now pending in the court of learned Special Judge, POCSO, Godda.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners happen to be the parents of the concerned boy and the victim has stated that she herself had gone to the house of the petitioners. Learned counsel has further submitted that the victim has already been examined before the learned Court.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State has opposed the prayer for bail. However, the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not in dispute.
5. Considering the facts that the petitioners happen to be the parents of the concerned boy and victim has already been examined, the petitioners are directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, POCSO, Godda in connection with Pathargama P.S. Case No. 75 of 2026, on the following conditions:
( 2026:JHHC:29097 )
2
(i) One of the bailors would be the present pairvikar of the petitioners.
(ii) The other bailor should be their close relatives.
(iii) The petitioners will attend the court on each and every date and on account of even single default, the learned court shall cancel the bail bond furnished by the petitioners.
(iv) The petitioners will deposit a self-attested copy of their Aadhar Card along with their mobile numbers before the learned court which they will not change during the pendency of the case without prior permission of the court.
(v) The petitioners shall fully co-operate with the proceedings before the learned trial court.
6. The instant application is allowed with the aforesaid conditions.
7. 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: