ARPIT SHARMA ALLIA ARPIT vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - SATISH KUMAR KESHRI — B.A./2454/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 87,BNS,6,POCSO,ACT. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 25th March 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: JHHC010078102026

Filing Number

B.A./5128/2026

Filing Date

28-Feb-2026

Registration No

B.A./2454/2026

Registration Date

23-Mar-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr.justice Sujit Narayan Prasad

Coram

Hon'ble Mr.justice Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

WOMEN & CHILDREN ( 196 )

Sub-Category

Protection of children from sexual offences Act ( 14 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Decision Date

25-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Last updated 14-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 87,BNS,6,POCSO,ACT

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ARPIT SHARMA ALLIA ARPIT

    Adv. NEELAM KUMARI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - SATISH KUMAR KESHRI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 25-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Mr.justice Sujit Narayan PrasadView PDF

    The Jharkhand High Court rejected the bail application of 19-year-old Arpit Sharma, who is accused under POCSO Act sections for allegedly enticing away and sexually assaulting a 16-year-old girl under the pretext of providing employment. The court found the crime heinous and noted that seven of eleven prosecution witnesses had testified supporting the charges, with mobile location data placing the petitioner near the incident site, warranting his continued custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 25-Mar-2026

    Fresh Filing (Admission)

    Hon'ble Mr.justice Sujit Narayan Prasad

  4. 19-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 28-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. B.A./2454/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Jharkhand High Court rejected the bail application of 19-year-old Arpit Sharma, who is accused under POCSO Act sections for allegedly enticing away and sexually assaulting a 16-year-old girl under the pretext of providing employment. The court found the crime heinous and noted that seven of eleven prosecution witnesses had testified supporting the charges, with mobile location data placing the petitioner near the incident site, warranting his continued custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case