Jharkhand High Court
B.A./8835/2026 of NIRANJAN KUMAR @ NIRANJAN Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 23 September 2026
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8835 of 2026 Niranjan Kumar @ Niranjan, aged about 21 years, son of Mahesh Yadav, resident of village – Rabdi, Pachmo, P.O. – Pachmo, P.S. – Hariharganj, District – Palamu, Jharkhand, 822113 … …
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:28603
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 8835 of 2026
Niranjan Kumar @ Niranjan, aged about 21 years, son of Mahesh Yadav, resident of village – Rabdi, Pachmo, P.O. – Pachmo, P.S. – Hariharganj, District – Palamu, Jharkhand, 822113
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Bibhav Kr. Singh, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, APP
---
04/23.09.2026
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 09.03.2026 in connection with Mahila Chhatarpur P.S. Case No.06 of 2026, registered under Sections 64 (2) m of the BNS and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act, It is submitted that charges have been framed under Sections 64(2)(m) and 69 of the BNS, 2023 and Section 6 read with Section 5(l) of the POCSO Act, 2012, and the case is pending in the court of learned Exclusive Special Judge (POCSO), Palamu at Daltonganj.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the F.I.R. itself, the victim is a married lady. However, prior to marriage, she was having love relationship with the petitioner and she was in constant touch with the petitioner even after her marriage. It is further alleged that the petitioner established physical relation with her on 24.02.2026, and upon inquiry by her family, she disclosed that the petitioner had established physical relation with her on the pretext of marriage.
4. The learned counsel submits that charge has already been framed.
5. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the victim is a minor. However, other 2026:JHHC:28603
submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not in dispute, particularly the fact that victim was already a married lady.
6. Considering the fact that charge – sheet has already been submitted and charge has already been framed and the petitioner was having love relationship with the victim, the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Exclusive Spl. Judge, POCSO, Palamu at Daltonganj in connection with Mahila Chhatarpur P.S. Case No.06 of 2026, on the following conditions:
(i) One of the bailors would be the present pairvikar of the petitioner.
(ii) The other bailor should be his close relative.
(iii) The petitioner 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 petitioner.
(iv) The petitioner will deposit a self-attested copy of his Aadhar Card along with his mobile number before the learned court which he will not change during the pendency of the case without prior permission of the court.
(v) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the proceedings before the learned trial court.
7. The instant application is allowed with the aforesaid conditions.
8. 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