Dismissed¶22

Dursu Sinku v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC12 Mar 2026B.A./1634/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail refused; application dismissed - POCSO rape case (girl aged 13); S.70(2) BNS 2023 with Ss.4 and 6 POCSO Act; bail sought under Ss.483-484 BNSS 2023; two-day FIR delay outweighed by victim (P.W.-1) testifying before the High Court and identifying petitioner; direct allegation plus investigation material cited; trial pending before Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Chaibasa, West Singhbhum; Kumardungi P.S. Case No.24 of 2025; High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi; B.A. No.1634 of 2026; Ananda Sen, J.; 12.03.2026; neutral citation 2026:JHHC:6625.

What did the court decide?

Considering the direct nature of the allegation and the material which had surfaced in the investigation, the Court was not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. ¶21

Dursu Sinku Vs the State of Jharkhand — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

2026:JHHC:6625

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.1634 of 2026

¶3

Dursu Sinku, son of Rautu Sinku @ Pradhan Sinku, resident of Village Angardiha, P.O. + P.S. Kumardungi, District West Singhbhum, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand. … … Opposite Party

¶6

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

¶7

----- For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. Shipra Sonam, Advocate Mr. Bhaskar Trivedi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, A.P.P. -----

¶8

02/ 12.03.2026

¶9

At 10:30 A.M.

¶10

The final evidence of the victim was called from the Court concerned.

¶11

Later on at 12:25 P.M.

¶12

The final evidence of the victim has been produced before this Court.

¶13

This Bail Application under Section 483 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been filed to release the petitioner on regular bail in connection with Kumardungi P.S. Case No.24 of 2025, for offence under Section 70(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. The case is presently pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum Special Judge, POCSO Act, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa.

¶14

2. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned A.P.P. representing the State. Perused the material available on record and also gone through the impugned order.

¶15

¶16

2026:JHHC:6625

¶17

3. Learned A.P.P. representing the State opposes the prayer

¶18

for bail.

¶19

4. There is an allegation that a girl of thirteen years has been ravished by the petitioner and others.

¶20

5. Though, there is a delay of two days in lodging the F.I.R., but the evidence of P.W.-1, who is the victim herself, supports the prosecution case. The victim has also identified the petitioner and his coterie.

¶21

6. Thus, considering the direct nature of allegation and the material which has surfaced in the investigation, I am not inclined to release this petitioner on bail.

¶22

7. Accordingly, this Bail Application is dismissed .

¶23

8. The photo copy of the evidence forwarded by the Court

¶24

concerned, be sealed and kept on record.

¶25

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶26

12^th March, 2026 Prashant. Cp - 3

¶27

Uploaded on 13.03.2026