Jagay Tuti Alias Jagaidhu Dudi Alias Jagai… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Jharkhand HC (2026)

Jagay Tuti Alias Jagaidhu Dudi Alias Jagai… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Jharkhand HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; bail application rejected. Ancillary directions issued: DNA profile report of the accused and the victim's child to be forwarded to the court promptly; other witnesses to be produced without delay; order to be communicated to the FSL, Ranchi, the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district and the Director, Prosecution to ensure compliance.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, in custody since 10.09.2025 in connection with Bandgaon P.S. Case No.18 of 2025 / Spl. POCSO Case No.45 of 2025 (charge framed under S. 64(2)(m) BNS 2023 and S. 6 r/w 5(1) and 5(j)(ii) POCSO Act), should be enlarged on bail. +1 more

Court's answer

Because the victim was a minor and had made direct allegations against the petitioner, the Court was not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail; accordingly, the bail application was rejected.

Ratio / Principle

The Court directed the State's counsel to ensure that the required report regarding the DNA profile of the accused and the child of the victim is forwarded to the court promptly, and that the other witnesses are produced before the court without delay.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail Application (B.A. No. 4976 of 2026, High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi) - REJECTED. Petitioner (stated to be 18 years old) in custody since 10.09.2025 in connection with Bandgaon P.S. Case No.18 of 2025 corresponding to Spl. POCSO Case No.45 of 2025, registered under S. 87 BNS 2023 and Ss. 5(1), 5(j)(ii), 6(1) POCSO Act; charge framed under S. 64(2)(m) BNS 2023 and S. 6 r/w 5(1) and 6 r/w 5(j)(ii) POCSO Act, pending before Addl. Sessions Judge-II-cum-Spl. Judge POCSO Act Cases, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa. Counsel submitted petitioner was in love with the 16-year-old victim, who gave birth to a child and was among 3 girls recovered from Tamil Nadu; State opposed, citing victim's statement of forceful physical relations. Court declined bail since the minor victim had made direct allegations against the petitioner. DNA profiling of the child and petitioner still awaited; State directed to forward the DNA report promptly, produce witnesses without delay, and communicate the order to FSL Ranchi, the concerned SP and the Director, Prosecution. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.; order dated 09.06.2026.)

2026:JHHC:16453

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

B.A. No. 4976 of 2026

Jagay Tuti @ Jagaidhu Dudi @ Jagai Tuti, son of Jado Tuti @ Jada Tuti … … Petitioner Versus

State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, APP

06 /09.06.2026

Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 10.09.2025 in connection with Bandgaon P.S. Case No.18 of 2025 corresponding to Spl. POCSO Case No.45 of 2025, registered under Section 87 of the BNS, 2023 and u/s 5(1), 5 (j) (ii) and 6 (1) of the POCSO Act, thereafter the charge has been framed under Section 64 (2) (m) of the B.N.S., 2023 and section 06 read with 5 (1) and 06 r/w 5 (j) (ii) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, now pending in the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge – II – cum – Spl. Judge POCSO Act Cases, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is 18 years old and is said to be in love with the victim, who is 16 years old. He further submits that the victim gave birth to a child and also stated that she was in love with the petitioner. He also submits that the victim along with 3 other girls were recovered from Tamil Nadu.

4. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that as per the statement of the victim, she has stated that she was in love with the petitioner, but the petitioner had forcefully established physical relationship with her several times and subsequently the petitioner stopped responding to her calls.

5. Considering the fact that the victim was minor and she has

1

2026:JHHC:16453

made direct allegation against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, this bail application is rejected.

6. So far as DNA profiling of the child and the petitioner is concerned, the same is still awaited.

7. The learned counsel for the State is directed to ensure that the required report regarding the DNA profile of the accused and the child of the victim is forwarded to the court promptly and that the other witnesses are also produced before the court without delay.

8. The learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the FSL, Ranchi, as well as to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district and the Director, Prosecution to ensure compliance.

9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

Date of Order:09.06.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:10.06.2026

2