Vikash Kumar Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Vikash Kumar Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, in custody since 15.11.2024 in Special POCSO Case No. 01 of 2025 (arising out of Rajrappa P.S. Case No. 172 of 2024, Sections 354(C), 354(D)(1)(ii), 376 IPC), should be enlarged on bail.

Court's answer

Considering that the petitioner's bail application was earlier rejected on merits on 04.09.2025 in B.A. No. 6906 of 2025 and that there is direct allegation against the petitioner, the Court was not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail; his prayer for bail stands rejected.

Ratio / Principle

The State is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses be promptly produced before the learned trial court and that the FSL report, if any, be forwarded to the concerned court at the earliest.

Key takeaways

Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate the order to the Director, Prosecution and to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance, and the order is to be communicated to the concerned court through FAX/e-mail.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — High Court of Jharkhand, B.A. No. 6404 of 2026, decided 13.07.2026 by Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. — Vikash Kumar Mahto v. The State of Jharkhand. Petitioner, in custody since 15.11.2024 in connection with Special POCSO Case No. 01 of 2025 arising out of Rajrappa P.S. Case No. 172 of 2024 (offences under Sections 354(C), 354(D)(1)(ii), 376 of the Indian Penal Code), pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Special Judge POCSO, Ramgarh, sought bail. His earlier bail application had been rejected on merits in B.A. No. 6906 of 2025 vide order dated 04.09.2025. The State opposed bail, stating the victim was not hostile and had supported the prosecution case. Trial status: victim examined as P.W. 4; 4 of 7 charge-sheet witnesses examined; the I.O., the Doctor and one formal witness remained; next date 30.07.2026. Held: considering the earlier rejection on merits and the direct allegation against the petitioner, the Court declined to enlarge him on bail and rejected the prayer for bail. Directions issued: the State to promptly produce the remaining witnesses before the trial court and forward the FSL report, if any, at the earliest; the order to be communicated to the Director, Prosecution and the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district, and to the concerned court through FAX/e-mail.

2026:JHHC:20679

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 6404 of 2026

Vikash Kumar Mahto, aged about 21 years, son of Krishna Mahto

… … Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

For the Petitioner : Mr.Pratik Sen, Advocate For the State : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, APP

02 /13.07.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since15.11.2024 in connection with Special POCSO Case No. 01 of 2025 arising out of Rajrappa P.S. Case No. 172 of 2024 for the offences registered under Sections 354(C), 354 (D) (1) (ii), 376 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Special Judge POCSO, Ramgarh.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that initial date of the alleged offence as per the FIR is five years prior to lodging of the FIR. He has submitted that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected on merits in B.A. No. 6906 of 2025 vide order dated 04.09.2025. He further submits that the victim has been examined as P.W. 4 and in paragraph 65 she has said that she was staying in a rented house for six days during which the petitioner used to provide her food.

4. Upon a query of this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that out of 7 charge-sheet witnesses, 4 have already been examined. The I.O, the Doctor and the one formal witnesses are yet to be examined. The next date fixed before the learned trial court is on 30.07.2026.

5. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the victim is not hostile and rather she has supported the prosecution case and the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail.

2026:JHHC:20679

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected on merits earlier on 04.09.2025 in B.A. No. 6906 of 2025 and there is direct allegation against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

7. However, the State is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses be promptly produced before the learned trial court and the FSL report, if any, be also forwarded to the concerned court at the earliest.

8. Learned counsel for the State is also directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution and also to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance.

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

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

Dated: 13.07.2026 Uploaded on 13.07.2026 Pramanik/

2