Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16859 (JHR)

ARPAN ROSHAN SORENG @ ARPAN RASAL SARENG v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./4984/2026 · 2026-06-15

Anubha Rawat Choudhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:17169 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 4984 of 2026 1. Arpan Roshan Soreng @ Arpan Rasal Sareng, son of Suman Soreng 2. Vimal Kujur, son of Tarsiyous Kujur. … … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioners : Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Bandana Sinha, APP --- 02/15.06.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 11.05.2025 in connection with Sursang P.S. Case No.04/2025, corresponding to Special POCSO Case No.31 of 2025, registered under Sections 70(2), 138 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 and under Section 4, 6 of POCSO Act, now pending in the court of learned Exclusive Special Judge POCSO court cum Additional Sessions Judge – IV, Gumla. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 11.05.2025 and he has been falsely implicated in this case. 4. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the victim has been examined and the injury was found on her private part and she has identified each of the accused through VC. It transpired that as per the records of the case, 3 witnesses were examined till 20.11.2025. 5. It further transpired during the course of hearing that the bail application of 3 co-accused persons has been rejected by this Court in B.A. No. 254 of 2026 vide order dated 20.02.2026 and in B.A. No. 1075 of 2026 vide order dated 09.03.2026. The allegation in the present case is of kidnapping and gangrape. Apparently, the trial has already commenced. 2026:JHHC:17169 2 6. Considering the nature of allegation and that the trial is in progress, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 7. However, the State is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses are promptly produced before the Court. 8. The learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district and also to Director, Prosecution to ensure compliance. 9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:15.06.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:18.06.2026