Dismissed¶¶11

Opisar Hansda v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC18 Feb 2026B.A./11143/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court Ranchi; B.A. No.11143 of 2025; bail application rejected 18-02-2026; petitioner Opisar Hansda; opposite party The State of Jharkhand; Karmatar P.S. Case No.34 of 2025; Section 65(2) B.N.S. 2023; Section 6 POCSO Act; alleged aggravated penetrative sexual assault on five-year-old victim; custody since 30.03.2025; no forensic examination of apparels; risk of absconding and evidence tampering; Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.; advocates Divya and Lily Sahay (Addl.P.P.).

What did the court decide?

None — prayer for bail of the petitioner rejected at this stage ¶¶11

Opisar Hansda Vs the State of Jharkhand — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

( 2026:JHHC:5073 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.11143 of 2025

¶2

Opisar Hansda, aged about 45 years, S/o-Lobesar Handa, R/oVillage-Ranitar, P.O. & P.S.-Karmatar, District-Jamtara, Jharkhand.

¶3

… Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party -----CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Ms. Divya, Advocate For the State : Ms. Lily Sahay, Addl.P.P. ------

¶6

Order No:-03 Dated:-18-02-2026

¶7

Heard the parties.

¶8

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Karmatar P.S. Case No.34 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Section 65(2) of the B.N.S., 2023 & Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed penetrative sexual assault upon the five years old victim girl. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that no forensic examination of the apparels of the victim has been done. It is next submitted that the petitioner undertakes that he will co-operate with the trial of the case. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 30.03.2025 as mentioned in para-01 of the instant bail application. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail.

¶10

Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon the victim and in view of the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the materials that have been collected during the investigation of the case, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding or tampering with evidence, if released on bail. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not be released on bail.

¶11

Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, the chance of the petitioner absconding or tampering with evidence, if released on bail, this Court is not inclined to admit the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected.

¶12

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶13

18/02/2026 Abhiraj/

Opisar Hansda v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Opisar Hansda v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bilasini Tudu Vs State of Jharkhand

Pappu Kr Yadav Alias Pappu Yadav Alias Ishwar Dayal Saw Alias Pappu Dayal Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Neeraj Kumar Alias Neeraj Kumar Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ram Pahan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Riyaj Ansari Alias Riyaz Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Saraswati Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand