Dismissed¶¶19

Bittu Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC6 Jul 2026B.A./4286/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejected; POCSO trial under Sections 87/3(5) B.N.S. 2023 (Bagodar P.S. Case No.94 of 2025 / POCSO Case No.83 of 2025, Special Judge, POCSO Act, Giridih); custody since 30.04.2025; earlier bail rejection dated 24.09.2025 in BA No.5857 of 2025; victim hostile and refused medical examination; only one witness remaining, unable to depose due to mental condition/illness; trial at fag end; trial court directed to record remaining witness's evidence; High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J., order dated 06.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioner; bail refused. The trial court was directed to take appropriate steps to record the evidence of the remaining witness in accordance with law. ¶¶19

Bittu Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Jharkhand HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the petitioner; bail refused. The trial court was directed to take appropriate steps to record the evidence of the remaining witness in accordance with law.

¶¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, in custody since 30.04.2025 in Bagodar P.S. Case No.94 of 2025 (POCSO Case No.83 of 2025) for offence under Sections 87/3(5) of the B.N.S. 2023, should be enlarged on bail, given that the victim has turned hostile and only one witness remains to be examined.

¶¶19

Court's answer

Prayer for bail rejected: as only one witness remains to be examined, the trial is at the fag end, and the petitioner's bail application was earlier rejected on merits, the Court was not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶¶19

Ratio / Principle

The Court recorded its finding that the State has expressed that it has certain difficulty in producing the remaining witness before the Trial Court.

¶¶16

Key takeaways

The learned trial court was directed to take appropriate steps so that the evidence of the remaining witness is also recorded in accordance with law.ratio¶¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail application (B.A. No. 4286 of 2026, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) rejected. The petitioner, in custody since 30.04.2025 in Bagodar P.S. Case No.94 of 2025 (POCSO Case No.83 of 2025) for offence under Sections 87/3(5), B.N.S. 2023, pending before the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Giridih, had earlier been refused bail on merits on 24.09.2025 in BA No.5857 of 2025. Although the victim had turned hostile, only one witness remained to be examined and the trial was at the fag end; the remaining witness was stated to be unable to depose owing to improper mental condition/illness. Noting the State's expressed difficulty in producing the witness, the Court declined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and directed the trial court to take appropriate steps to record the remaining witness's evidence in accordance with law.

¶1

( 2026:JHHC:19754 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

B.A. No. 4286 of 2026

¶4

Bittu Kumar, aged about 21 years, S/o Vijay Ram, R/o VillageKhandol, PO- Phulari, PS- Sandesh, District- Bhojpur, Bihar.

¶5

The State of Jharkhand. … … Opp. Party

¶6

¶7

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶8

¶9

For the Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Kr. Rai, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vijoy Kr. Sinha, APP ---

¶10

05 /06.07.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

¶11

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 30.04.2025 in connection with Bagodar P.S. Case No.94 of 2025 (POCSO Case No.83 of 2025) for the offence registered under Sections 87 / 3 (5) of the B.N.S. 2023 and the case is pending in the court of learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Giridih.

¶12

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 30.04.2025 and prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 24.09.2025 in BA No.5857 of 2025.

¶13

4. He further submits that the victim has turned hostile and has refused for her medical examination. He submits that next date of the case is 09.07.2026.

¶14

5. The learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that as per the report received from the concerned Trial Court, only one witness remains to be examined.

¶15

6. He has further submitted that he has filed the counter-affidavit before this Court and has submitted that Mukhia has given a certificate that the mental condition of the remaining witness to be examined is not proper and his wife has also stated that he has not been produced before the court as his mental condition is not good. The learned counsel has submitted that the Doctor has stated that due to illness, the said witness is unable to depose before the learned Trial Court.

¶16

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the State has expressed that it has certain difficulty to produce the remaining witness before the Trial Court.

¶17

( 2026:JHHC:19754 )

¶18

8. The learned court is directed to take appropriate steps so that the evidence of the remaining witness is also recorded in accordance with law.

¶19

9. The evidence of the victim has been brought on record by the petitioner and it is submitted that the victim has turned hostile. However, in view of the fact that only one witness remains to be examined and the trial is at the fag end and the bail application of the petitioner has been rejected on merits earlier , this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected.

¶20

10. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e-mail.

¶21

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶22

06.07.2026 Uploaded sandeep/-

Bittu Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bittu Kumar 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

Dilbar Shahi @ Dilwar Shahi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manoj Kumar Saw @ Manoj Kumar Sao Vs State of Jharkhand

Sumit Tana Bhagat Vs the State of Jharkhand

Munilal Hembrom Vs the State of Jharkhand

Samid Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ajit Das Vs the State of Jharkhand