Jharkhand High Court
B.A./8821/2026 of SUJIT BHUIYAN @ SUJIT RAM Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 23 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8821 of 2026 Sujit Bhuiyan @ Sujit Ram, age about 20 years, son of late Prabhu Bhuiya @ Prabhu Bhuyan, resident of village – Chatakman, P.O. – Tamge Kalan, P.S. Ranka, District - Garhwa. … … Petitioner Versus The State of
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:28587
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 8821 of 2026
Sujit Bhuiyan @ Sujit Ram, age about 20 years, son of late Prabhu Bhuiya @ Prabhu Bhuyan, resident of village – Chatakman, P.O. – Tamge Kalan, P.S. Ranka, District - Garhwa.
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kr. No.2, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, APP
---
03/23.09.2026
Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 31.05.2026 in connection with Ranka P.S. Case No.76 of 2026, corresponding to POCSO Case No.96 of 2026, registered under Sections 64 (2) (m), and 65 (1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, now pending in the court of learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Garhwa.
3. As per the prosecution case, it is alleged that the petitioner on the false promise of marriage, established physical relation with the victim girl and as a result of which she becomes pregnant and gave birth to a female child after which the petitioner refused to marry her.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that the charge – sheet has been submitted for alleged offence punishable under Section 64 (2) (m) and Section 65 (1) of BNS and under Section 4 and 6 of POCSO Act and cognizance of the same has been taken. As per the impugned order, charges were framed on 03.08.2026 and the matter is pending for production of witnesses. There are 7 charge sheet witnesses.
5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there are direct and specific allegations against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the impugned order clearly states 2026:JHHC:28587
that the victim, who was a minor, in her statement, has fully supported the allegation against the petitioner.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the direct allegation against the petitioner in connection with the victim, who was minor, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, this bail application is rejected.
7. However, the trial has commenced, the State is directed to ensure that the witnesses are promptly produced before the court.
8. The learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district and also to Director, Prosecution to ensure compliance.
9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:23.09.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:29.09.2026