Jharkhand High Court
B.A./8807/2026 of KANDEY RAM ICHAGUTU Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 23 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8807 of 2026 Kandey Ram Ichagutu, aged about 27 years, S/o – late Turam Ichagutu, R/o – vill - Bhoya, P.O. – Bhoya, P.S. – Muffasil, District West Singhbhum, Jharkhand … … 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:28567
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 8807 of 2026
Kandey Ram Ichagutu, aged about 27 years, S/o – late Turam Ichagutu, R/o – vill - Bhoya, P.O. – Bhoya, P.S. – Muffasil, District West Singhbhum, Jharkhand
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
05/23.09.2026
Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 20.06.2026 in connection with Chaibasa Mufassil (Pandrasali O.P) P.S. Case No.86 of 2026, registered under Sections 64 (2) (m) of the BNS, 2023 and under Sections 6 and 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012, corresponding to Special (POCSO) Case No.42 of 2026. Cognizance has been taken for the offenses punishable under Section 64(2)(m) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 6 read with Section 5(1) of the POCSO Act, 2012, and the case is now pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the victim wants to marry the petitioner, but the parents are not willing for marriage, and therefore, a false case has been lodged against the petitioner. He submits that there is inordinate delay of 7 months in lodging the F.I.R. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 20.06.2026 and charge has been framed on 24.08.2026.
4. Learned counsel for the State Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, APP, has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that victim is only 14 to 15
2026:JHHC:28567
years of age and the petitioner is 27 years of age.
5. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the fact that victim is minor and it is alleged that the petitioner has established physical relationship with the victim on the pretext of marriage, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, this bail application is 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:23.09.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:29.09.2026