Jharkhand High Court
B.A./8841/2026 of SANJAY ORAON Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 23 September 2026
) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8841 of 2026 Sanjay Oraon aged about 20 years, Aadhar-229775293093, S/o Mangra Oraon, R/o Village Duru, P.O. and P.SS. Bero-District-Ranchi … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. 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:28683 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8841 of 2026
Sanjay Oraon aged about 20 years, Aadhar-229775293093, S/o Mangra Oraon, R/o Village Duru, P.O. and P.SS. Bero-District-Ranchi
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
… … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rana Surjit Singh, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P.
---
06/23.09.2026 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 Mander P.S. Case No. 143 of 2025, Spl. POCSO Case No. 8 of 2026, for the offences registered under Sections 96/64 of the B.N.S. 2023 and section 4/6/8 of the POCSO Act, 2012, pending in the court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner,-IV, Ranchi cum Spl. Judge, POCSO Act, Ranchi.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the victim remained in the house of the petitioner for more than a year who also became pregnant and gave birth to a child. However, as per the allegation it is alleged that the petitioner eloped with the sister of the victim. The learned counsel submits that as per the custom, some amount is to be arranged for fest before getting married and therefore he went to Hyderabad for earning.
4. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that victim was minor at the time of offence.
5. To this, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of 07 charge sheeted witnesses, 04 witnesses have already been examined. Some observation may be made to expedite the trial as the petitioner is in custody since 26.12.2025.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the victim is minor and she became pregnant and trial is at advance stage, this court is not inclined to enlarge the
( 2026:JHHC:28683 )
2
petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected.
7. However, the State is directed to ensure that the remaining 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 to the Director, Prosecution to ensure compliance.
9. 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/