Md. Murad Aged About 21 Years vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 1710 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Md. Murad Aged About 21 Years vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite ... on 10 March, 2026

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

                                                               2026:JHHC:6267




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                       B.A. No. 1286 of 2026

     Md. Murad aged about 21 years, S/o Md. Mangla, Resident of
     Village- Paharpur (Devanchak), P.O. + P.S.- Meharma, District-
     Godda.                                 ...    ...    Petitioner
                            Versus
     The State of Jharkhand            ...      ... Opposite Party
                            ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. Naveen Kr. Gaunjhu, Advocate

---

02/10.03.2026

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 08.12.2025 in connection with Meharma P.S. Case No. 195 of 2025, for the alleged offence registered under Sections 64, 74, 333, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Godda.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it appears that the informant, who is the mother of the victim, wanted the petitioner to marry her daughter but when it did not materialize the First Information Report (F.I.R.) was filed. He also submits that the F.I.R. has been lodged after delay of about two months. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the victim is major and as per annexure-2 the victim is taking the benefit of Maiya Samman Yojana.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and submits that the victim is minor and as per mark-sheet of matriculation examination her date of birth is shown as 01.01.2008.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties this Court finds that there is direct allegation against the petitioner and the victim, who is appears to be a minor as per mark-sheet of matriculation

2026:JHHC:6267

examination has supported the allegations made against the petitioner as is reflected from the impugned order itself. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

6. The instant bail application is rejected.

7. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through 'FAX/E-mail'.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 10.03.2026 Rakesh/-

Uploaded on:-11.03.2026