EJAJ ANSARI vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - RAJNEESH VARDHAN — B.A./3867/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 137(2),126(2),70(2),61(2),BNS,4,6,POCSO,ACT. Disposed: Contested--Rejected on 07th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: JHHC010130262026

Filing Number

B.A./8410/2026

Filing Date

18-Apr-2026

Registration No

B.A./3867/2026

Registration Date

04-May-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Coram

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

WOMEN & CHILDREN ( 196 )

Sub-Category

Protection of children from sexual offences Act ( 14 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Decision Date

07-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Rejected

Last updated 04-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 137(2),126(2),70(2),61(2),BNS,4,6,POCSO,ACT

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.EJAJ ANSARI

    Adv. KAMDEO PANDEY,ABHAY KISHORE,ABHAY KISHORE, ,ABHAY KISHORE

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - RAJNEESH VARDHAN

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat ChoudharyView PDF

    Summary: The High Court of Jharkhand rejected Ejaj Ansari's bail application in a POCSO case where he has been in custody since August 2025. The court found the direct allegations against him sufficient to deny bail, despite arguments that his parents did not support the prosecution and the victim failed to identify him by name. The court directed the State to expedite the trial by promptly producing remaining witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-May-2026

    Fresh Filing (Admission)

    Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary

  4. 18-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. B.A./3867/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The High Court of Jharkhand rejected Ejaj Ansari's bail application in a POCSO case where he has been in custody since August 2025. The court found the direct allegations against him sufficient to deny bail, despite arguments that his parents did not support the prosecution and the victim failed to identify him by name. The court directed the State to expedite the trial by promptly producing remaining witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case