Jharkhand High Court
B.A./8862/2026 of CHANDAN KUMAR THAKUR Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 23 September 2026
) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. B.A. No. 8862 of 2026 Chandan Kumar Thakur aged about 22 years, son of Mahendra Kumar Thakur @ Mahendra Thakur, resident of village, Barbad, P.O. and P.S. Madhupur … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …
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:28684 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. B.A. No. 8862 of 2026
Chandan Kumar Thakur aged about 22 years, son of Mahendra Kumar Thakur @ Mahendra Thakur, resident of village, Barbad, P.O. and P.S. Madhupur
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
… … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pran Pranay, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Ms. Shweta Singh, A.P.P.
02/23.09.2026 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 Madhupur P.S. Case No. 28 of 2026, corresponding to POCSO Case No. 24 of 2026, for the offences registered under Sections 96, 3(5) of the B.N.S. 2023, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III-cum-POCSO Special Court at Deoghar.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the deposition of the victim is taken into consideration as contained in Annexure-2, the case appears to have been filed only because petitioner and the victim belong to different religion.
4. To this, the learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that the victim is minor and as mentioned in the impugned order dated 20.08.2026, the case was fixed for recording the statement of the accused and the trial is on the verge of completion.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the trial is at the advance stage and the victim was minor, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected.
6. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through FAX/e-mail.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 23.09.2026 Uploaded on 28.09.2026 Binit/