Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5910 (JHR)

SAHIL GOPE v. STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./3051/2026 · 2026-04-15

Anubha Rawat Choudhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

( 2026:JHHC:10718 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3051 of 2026 Sahil Gope son of Sanatan Gope … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mrs. Vani Kumari, Advocate : Ms. Vaishnavi Kaushik, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, APP --- 04/15.04.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 28.01.2026 in connection with Kharswan P.S. Case No. 06 of 2026, for the offences registered under Sections 96/137(2) of B.N.S. 2023 read with section 4/6 of POCSO Act and cognizance has been taken under Section 65(1), 96,351(2), 352 of BNS and 4/6 of POCSO Act of IPC, pending in the court of learned Special Judge POCSO Act, at Seraikella-Kharswan. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner is in custody since 28.01.2026. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner and the victim were in talking terms and there is marginal difference in their age. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has referred to the counter affidavit and has submitted that the victim who was aged 15 years 6 months of the date of occurrence was found pregnant and has supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS. He submits that there is direct allegation against the petitioner. ( 2026:JHHC:10718 ) 2 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the victim was 15 years 6 months and 1 day of age on the date of occurrence and there is direct allegation against the petitioner and the victim also become pregnant, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected. 6. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 15.04.2026 Uploaded on: 16.04.2026 Binit/