Jharkhand High Court
B.A./8568/2026 of AMIT RAY @ AMIT RAM Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 23 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8568 of 2026 Amit Ray @ Amit Ram, aged about 20 years, Son of Dipa Ray, Resident of Village- Kewa tand, P.O. & P.S.- Tisri, Dist.- Giridih. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ---
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:28613
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 8568 of 2026
Amit Ray @ Amit Ram, aged about 20 years, Son of Dipa Ray, Resident of Village- Kewa tand, P.O. & P.S.- Tisri, Dist.- Giridih.
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, APP
---
07/23.09.2026
Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 02.08.2025 in connection with POCSO Case No. 122 of 2025 arising out of Tisri P.S. Case No. 69 of 2025, registered under Sections 126(2)/70(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and sections 4 & 6 of POCSO Act, now pending in the court of learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Giridih.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the victim has been examined as PW-1, though she has not turned hostile, but she has not fully supported the case of the prosecution. He submits that as on 11.03.2026 altogether 03 witnesses were examined. The learned counsel submits that he is not aware about the present stage of the case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter submits that the victim is about 13 years of age and she has alleged that she had gone to Santosh Kirana store where 04 boys came and they took her forcefully to the house of a person namely, Ashish and she was subjected to rape.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State has opposed the prayer for bail.
6. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the fact that there is serious allegation of gang rape, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this
2026:JHHC:28613
2
bail application is rejected.
7. The bail application of the co-accused, namely Ejaj Ansari, has been rejected by this court vide order dated 07.05.2026 in B.A. No. 3867 of 2026.
8. However, the state is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses are promptly produced before the learned court. If there is any FSL report awaited, the same be also forwarded to the learned court concerned.
9. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution and Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance.
10. 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 Pankaj Date of Uploading:28.09.2026