MAHAVEER GOPE ALIAS PRINCE v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
Cr.M.P./1412/2026 · 2026-06-12
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 16368 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 16368 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:JHHC:17040
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
CR. M.P. No. 1412 of 2026
Mahaveer Gope alias Prince aged about 29 years son of Satyanarayan Gope, resident of Village- Jagannathpur, P.O. & P.S. Jagannathpur, District Singhbhum (West)
… … Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand.
… … Opp. Party ---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Aun Kumar, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, Advocate
---
04/12.06.2026
1. This Cr.M.P. has been filed for modification in paragraph No.1 and prayer portion of bail petition vide B.A. No. 10903 of 2025 as well as the order dated 18.02.2026 passed by this Court.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was granted bail in B.A. No. 10903 of 2025 vide order dated 18.02.2026, but in the bail application and therefore, in the order grating bail, Drugs and Cosmetics case number has been wrongly mentioned as 01 of 2025 instead of 02 of 2025. He has submitted that the P.S. Case number has been rightly mentioned.
3.
Learned counsel has further submitted that arising out of the same P.S. case, two cases were ultimately instituted and the petitioner’s case was Drugs and Cosmetics Case No. 02 of 2025 and therefore, he is seeking modification in the bail order.
4.
Learned counsel has also referred to the order framing charge in Drugs and Cosmetic Case No. 02 of 2025.
5. Perusal of the bail order in B.A. No. 10903 of 2025 reveals that it was submitted by the petitioner that only 9 bottles of the cough syrup were recovered from the scooty belonging to the petitioner which was parked in the house of the co-accused. However, such allegation does not find place in the order framing charge.
2026:JHHC:17040
2
6. The case number having been wrongly mentioned in the bail application and consequently same case number has been mentioned in the order granting bail, this Court is not inclined to modify the order dated 18.02.2026 passed in B.A. No. 10903 of 2025. However, it will be certainly open to the petitioner to file fresh bail application.
7. Accordingly, this Cr. M. P. is disposed of.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 12.06.2026 Rakesh/- Uploaded On:-15.06.2026