2026:JHHC:21850 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5370 of 2026 Sumit Gope @ Pintu Gope, Son of Late Mohan Gope @ Kerla Gope … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Birat Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate For Opp. Party - State : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, APP --- 05/23.07.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Special POCSO Case No. 27 of 2025 arising out of Manoharpur P.S. Case No. 19 of 2025, registered under Sections 65(1) and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, now pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-Cum-Special Judge POCSO Act cases West Singhbhum at Chaibasa. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 02.06.2025 having no criminal antecedent. He submits that the petitioner has been wrongly made an accused in the present case. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer for bail and has produced a copy of the DNA report in sealed cover during the court proceedings. He submits that the trial is already going on. 5. Learned counsel for the State has also submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner and the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail. 6. To this, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that till 17.03.2026, only 01 out of 09 charge-sheeted witnesses had been examined and he is not aware regarding the present status of the case. 7. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and 2026:JHHC:21850 2 considering the allegation against the petitioner and also the statement of the victim aged 13 years recorded under section 183 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected. 8. However, the State is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses are promptly produced before the learned court. 9. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution and Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance. 10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:23.07.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:24.07.2026