Dismissed¶6

MD Murad v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC10 Mar 2026B.A./1286/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi; B.A. No. 1286 of 2026; bail application rejected 10.03.2026; Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary; petitioner Md. Murad; Meharma P.S. Case No. 195 of 2025; Godda; POCSO Act 2012 Section 4; BNS 2023 Sections 64, 74, 333, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5); victim minor per matriculation mark-sheet, DOB 01.01.2008; FIR lodged after delay of about two months; Maiya Samman Yojana; custody since 08.12.2025; Additional Sessions Judge-1st-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Godda.

What did the court decide?

There is direct allegation against the petitioner; the victim appears to be a minor as per the matriculation examination mark-sheet and has supported the allegations made against the petitioner as reflected from the impugned order itself; accordingly, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. ¶5

MD Murad Vs State of Jharkhand — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Jharkhand HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶6

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, in custody since 08.12.2025 in connection with Meharma P.S. Case No. 195 of 2025 (Sections 64, 74, 333, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) BNS 2023; Section 4 POCSO Act 2012), should be enlarged on bail, in view of the direct allegation against him, the apparent minority of the victim per the matriculation mark-sheet, and the victim's support to the allegations.

¶5

Court's answer

¶5

Ratio / Principle

The instant bail application is rejected.

¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail application rejected — High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, B.A. No. 1286 of 2026, decided 10.03.2026 by Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary (single judge). Petitioner Md. Murad (aged about 21 years), in custody since 08.12.2025 in connection with Meharma P.S. Case No. 195 of 2025 registered under Sections 64, 74, 333, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012, pending before the Additional Sessions Judge-1st-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Godda, sought bail. Petitioner's counsel submitted that the informant (mother of the victim) wanted the petitioner to marry her daughter and lodged the FIR after a delay of about two months, and that the victim is a major drawing Maiya Samman Yojana benefits (annexure-2); State counsel opposed, citing the matriculation mark-sheet showing the victim's date of birth as 01.01.2008. Finding a direct allegation against the petitioner, that the victim appears to be a minor per the matriculation mark-sheet, and that she had supported the allegations as reflected from the impugned order, the Court declined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and rejected the application.

¶1

2026:JHHC:6267

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

B.A. No. 1286 of 2026

¶4

Md. Murad aged about 21 years, S/o Md. Mangla, Resident of Village- Paharpur (Devanchak), P.O. + P.S.- Meharma, DistrictGodda. … … Petitioner Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ---

¶6

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 ---

¶7

02 /10.03.2026

¶8

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶9

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-1^st -cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Godda.

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

2026:JHHC:6267

¶15

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.

¶16

6. The instant bail application is rejected.

¶17

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

¶18

10.03.2026

¶19

Rakesh/Uploaded on:-11.03.2026

¶20

MD Murad v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

MD Murad v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Latif Mian And Ors. Vs Hazrat Mian And Ors.

MD Raju @ Mohammad Raju Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dinesh Tirkey Alias Nitin Vs the State of Jharkhand

Binod Kewat Vs the State of Jharkhand

Subodh Singh Alias Sibodh Singh Vs the State of Jahrkhand

MD Faiyaz Khan Alias Faiyaz Ahmad Alias Faiyaz Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand