Allowed

Rajkumar Nayak v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC6 May 2026Cr.Rev./366/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Juvenile revision against dismissal of bail by Juvenile Justice Board, affirmed on appeal. With trial witnesses including the victim declared hostile and the petitioner detained since December 2025, the High Court set aside both orders and granted bail with a parental-supervision condition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail: Rs. 10,000 bond with two like sureties before the Principal Magistrate, JJ Board, Khunti; one bailor must be his father.

Rajkumar Nayak Vs the State of Jharkhand — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:13523 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 366 of 2026

¶3

¶4

Rajkumar Nayak represented by his natural guardian/faher namely Pintu Nayak … … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite parties ---

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶8

¶9

For the Petitioner : M/s. Nikhilesh Kumar Chatterjee, Shiv Prasad & Arvind Prakash Malakar, Advocate

¶10

For the Opposite party : Special P. P.

¶11

¶12

2/06.05.2026 Heard Mr. Nikhilesh Kumar Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.

¶13

This application has been directed against the judgment dated 26.02.2026 passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge I, Khunti in Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2026 whereby and whereunder the order dated 16.01.2026 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Khunti in Khunti P. S. Case No. 230 of 2025 corresponding to POCSO Case No. 2 of 2026 rejecting the prayer for bail of the petitioner has been affirmed.

¶14

Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though witnesses have been examined including the victim in course of trial but all have been declared hostile by the prosecution. It has further been submitted that the petitioner is in observation home since 15.12.2025.

¶15

Learned Special P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

¶16

It has been alleged that the petitioner and some of the accused persons had enticed away the daughter of the informant. An interlocutory application has been preferred by the petitioner for early hearing of criminal revision no. 366 of 2026 being I. A. No. 5512 of 2026 in which the evidences of the witnesses including the victim examined

¶17

-2-

¶18

during the trial have been brought on record from which it clearly transpires that the victim has been declared hostile by the prosecution.

¶19

Regard being had to the above, while setting aside the orders dated 26.02.2026 and 16.01.2026, direct that the petitioner above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Khunti in connection with Khunti P. S. Case No. 230 of 2025 corresponding to POCSO Case No. 2 of 2026, subject to the condition that one of the bailors should be the father of the petitioner who shall ensure the safety of the petitioner and shall further ensure that he is kept away from the antisocial elements.

¶20

This criminal revision is allowed.

¶21

Consequent to the revision application being allowed, I. A. No. 5512 of 2026 has become redundant and the same accordingly stands disposed of as well.

¶22

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)

¶23

6^th May 2026 R. Shekhar Cp 3 Uploaded 08.05.2026

Rajkumar Nayak v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkumar Nayak v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kunal Kumar Alias Kunal Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Md. Wasiullah Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arvind Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajkumar Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vinay Lodha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Binod Pandit Vs the State of Jharkhand