Regular bail sought by a POCSO gang rape accused facing trial under Section 70(2) BNS and Section 6/5(g) POCSO. Court noted seriousness of allegations and rejection of co-accused's bail, and rejected the bail prayer while directing prompt production of witnesses.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
( 2026:JHHC:17205 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 4987 of 2026
Parmeshwar Sardar @ Chocho
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party ---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Shantanu Singh, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. V.S. Sahay, Advocate ---
02 /15.06.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 26.10.2025 in connection with Jagannathpur P.S. Case No. 62 of 2025, Special POCSO Case No. 57 of 2025, for the offences registered under Sections 70(2) of the B.N.S. 2023 and section 4(2) of the POCSO Act, 2012, how charge has been framed under Section 70(2) of the BNS and under section 06 read with Section 5(g) of the POCSO Act, 2012, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, POCSO Act at West Singhbhum at Chaibasa.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though it is a case of gang rape against five accused persons, but the victim could not identify the petitioner in the dock by stating the she was not recognizing them but could identify them by their names. During the course of argument, it transpired that out of 8 witnesses, 3 witnesses have already been examined.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that there is serious allegation against the petitioner and he may not be enlarged on bail. The victim was only 12 years of age.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the seriousness of the allegation against the petitioner and also the fact that bail application of the co-accused namely Chotrai Sardar @ Chotray Sardar@ Capsule has been rejected by this court
( 2026:JHHC:17205 )
vide order dated 21.04.2026 passed in B.A. No. 3384 of 2026, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected. 6. The trial is going on. A direction has already been issued in B.A. No. 3384 of 2026 to the State to ensure that the witnesses are promptly produced before the learned court.
7. The learned counsel for the State is again directed to communicate this order as well as the order passed in B.A. No. 3384 of 2026, to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district so that the witnesses are promptly produced before the court without fail. 8. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through FAX/e-mail.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Dated: 15.06.2026 Uploaded on 18.06.2026
Binit/
2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a POCSO gang rape accused in custody since October 2025 should be enlarged on regular bail during trial.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Parmeshwar Sardar @ Chocho
The State of Jharkhand
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
