Jharkhand High Court
B.A./9383/2026 of BHAGTU GOPE Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 6 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9383 of 2026 Bhagtu Gope, aged about 61 years, son of late Roshan Gope @ Roshan Mahto, resident of Akdonikla, P.O. & P.S. Giridih (M) District Giridih. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … …
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
2026:JHHC:29898
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 9383 of 2026
Bhagtu Gope, aged about 61 years, son of late Roshan Gope @ Roshan Mahto, resident of Akdonikla, P.O. & P.S. Giridih (M) District Giridih.
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Devesh Ajmani, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Ms. Lily Sahay, APP
---
06/06.10.2026
Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 17.09.2025 in connection with S.T. Case No. 87 of 2026 arising out of Giridih (M) P.S. Case No. 188 of 2025, registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118, 352, 74, 109 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, now pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Giridih.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that although the petitioner is named accused along with other persons, but there are general and omnibus allegations against the petitioner and others. The learned counsel has submitted that considering the custody of the petitioner since 17.09.2025, the petitioner be enlarged on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that two ladies who are also named accused, namely Munniya Devi and Muni Kumari, have been extended the privilege of anticipatory bail by coordinate bench of this Court in A.B.A. No. 1263 of 2026 and A.B.A. No. 6710 of 2025 respectively.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has thereafter submitted that charge has been framed on 15.05.2026. However, he is not aware about the present status of the case. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.
6. Learned counsel for the state has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there are two victims in the case. Both have
2026:JHHC:29898
2
suffered grievous injuries on vital parts of the body. The neck of the informant of the case was cut due to the incident. She has submitted that the ladies have been extended the benefit of anticipatory bail, but the anticipatory bail application of the co-accused, who was male, was rejected by the coordinate Bench of this Court.
7. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the fact that the victim herself is the informant of the case and she along with her son suffered grievous injury arising out of the incident and apparently, the witnesses who have suffered injuries are yet to be examined before the learned court, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage and hence, this bail application is rejected.
8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:06.10.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:08.10.2026