Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 22450 (JHR)

SANTOSH GOPE v. STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./6778/2026 · 2026-07-30

Anubha Rawat Choudhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:22557 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 6778 of 2026 Santosh Gope, son of Kirani Gope … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Ms. Shweta Singh, APP --- 02/30.07.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 09.02.2026 in connection with Special POCSO Case No. 10 of 2026 arising out of Sitaramdera P.S. Case No. 15 of 2026, registered under Sections 65(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and sections 5 and 6 of POCSO Act, now pending in the court of learned Special Judge (POCSO Act) at Jamshedpur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the victim is said to be a domestic help in the house of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner used to reside with his wife and therefore, there is no likelihood of commission of rape in the house. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner and trial is going on. She submits that out of 12 charge-sheeted witnesses, 3 witnesses have already been examined including the victim and the victim has supported the prosecution case. She also submits that the victim was minor. 5. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the direct and specific allegation made against the petitioner and also the fact that trial is going on, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected. 6. However, the State is directed to ensure that the remaining 2026:JHHC:22557 2 witnesses are promptly produced before the learned court. 7. 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. 8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:30.07.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:31.07.2026