RAJU BHUIYAN vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - V.S.SAHAY — B.A./5107/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 376(3),IPC,4,8,POCSO,ACT. Disposed: Contested--Rejected on 19th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: JHHC010177732026

Filing Number

B.A./11464/2026

Filing Date

25-May-2026

Registration No

B.A./5107/2026

Registration Date

02-Jun-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

19-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Rejected

Last updated 21-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 376(3),IPC,4,8,POCSO,ACT

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAJU BHUIYAN

    Adv. PARITOSH RAI,VIJAY SHANKAR,VIJAY SHANKAR, ,MD IMRAN HASSAN,VIJAY SHANKAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - V.S.SAHAY

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 19-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat ChoudharyView PDF

    Case Summary: The High Court of Jharkhand rejected Raju Bhuiyan's bail application in a POCSO case involving alleged sexual abuse of a 14-year-old minor. The Court declined bail considering the serious nature of charges under IPC Sections 376, 506 and POCSO Act, the earlier bail rejection in December 2024, and that five of seven prosecution witnesses had already testified. The Court directed the State to promptly produce remaining witnesses and forward the pending FSL report to expedite trial completion. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 19-Jun-2026

    Fresh Filing (Admission)

    Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary

  4. 25-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. B.A./5107/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: The High Court of Jharkhand rejected Raju Bhuiyan's bail application in a POCSO case involving alleged sexual abuse of a 14-year-old minor. The Court declined bail considering the serious nature of charges under IPC Sections 376, 506 and POCSO Act, the earlier bail rejection in December 2024, and that five of seven prosecution witnesses had already testified. The Court directed the State to promptly produce remaining witnesses and forward the pending FSL report to expedite trial completion. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case