PRADEEP GANJHU @ PRADEEP KUMAR v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
B.A./3155/2026 · 2026-04-17
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 6003 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 6003 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:JHHC:11061
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 3155 of 2026
Pradeep Ganjhu @ Pradeep Kumar, s/o Rampal Ganjhu
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Nath, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, APP
---
02/17.04.2026
Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 13.12.2024 in connection with S.T. Case No. 588 of 2025 arising out of Pithoria P.S. Case No. 68 of 2023, registered under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, now pending in the court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XV, at Ranchi.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the alleged incident is of 06.05.2023 and the First Information report was instituted on 08.05.2023 and there is delay of more than 24 hours in lodging the First Information Report. He has further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he is in custody since 13.12.2024. However, his anticipatory bail application was rejected by this Court on 21.11.2023.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the charge has already been framed on 12.09.2025 and there are six charge-sheeted witnesses, but no witness has been produced by the prosecution for examination.
5.
Learned counsel for the opposite party- State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that on the face of the FIR, there is direct allegation against the petitioner.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the direct allegation made against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected.
2026:JHHC:11061
2
7. However, the State is directed to ensure that the witnesses are promptly produced before the learned court.
8.
Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this
order to the Director, Prosecution and also to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district 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:17.04.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:17.04.2026