Jharkhand High Court
Cr.A(SJ)/553/2026 of SANTOSH GOPE ALIAS BABLA Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 6 October 2026
(S.J.) No. 553 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 553 of 2026 ------ Santosh Gope @ Babla, aged about 28 years, S/o Budhdev Gope, R/o Nirmal Nagar, Bilas Basti (Domuhani), P.O. & P.S.-Sonari, Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum and permanent R/o
2026:JHHC:29842
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Santosh Gope @ Babla, aged about 28 years, S/o Budhdev Gope, R/o Nirmal Nagar, Bilas Basti (Domuhani), P.O. & P.S.-Sonari, Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum and permanent R/o Jugilong, P.O. & P.S.- Nimdih, Dist.- Seraikella-Kharsawan, Jharkhand
....
....
….
Appellant(s)
Versus
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.
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Jagbandhu Singh, aged about 50 years, S/o Mansa Singh, R/o Dobo Kapali, P.O. & P.S.-Chandil, District-Saraikela
.... .... .... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Vishal Kr. Trivedi, Adv.
Mr. Akash Kumar Tiwari, Adv.
Mr. Jimmy Kumar, Adv.
For the State
: Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, A.P.P. For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Ajay Kumar, Adv.
------
Order No.05/Dated : 06.10.2026
1. Heard the parties.
2. The present appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 25.05.2026 passed in M.C.R.A No.315 of 2026 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Seraikela in connection with Chandil P.S. Case No. 203 of 2025 corresponding to SC/ST Case No.05 of 2026, registered for the offence under Sections 191(2), 193(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 308(4), 109(1), 352 and 351(3) of the B.N.S, 2023 and Sections 3(1) (xii) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. Now, the case is pending in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, at, Seraikela.
3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that he has five criminal antecedents in which he has already been acquitted in four of the cases, and he was remanded in the fifth, which has been brought on record. The allegation against the appellant is that there was a demand of rangdari and he was armed with pistol, but injuries are simple in nature and firearms were not used. It has further been submitted that the appellants are in custody since 14.02.2026 and he undertakes to participate in the trial. On the above basis, prayer for bail has been made.
2026:JHHC:29842
4. Learned counsel for the State and learned for the respondent No.2 have opposed the prayer for bail. It has been submitted that the victim has been abused and assaulted, and as such, the offence under the SC/ST (PoA) Act is made out.
5. Considering the period of custody, the fact that firearms were not used and injuries are simple in nature, the appellant named above, is directed to be released on bail, on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, at, Seraikela, in connection with Chandil P.S. Case No. 203 of 2025 corresponding to SC/ST Case No.05 of 2026, subject to the condition that the appellant will submit self-attested photocopy of his Aadhaar Cards and also submit his mobile number before the learned trial court which he shall always keep active and will not change it during pendency of this case without prior permission of the court.
6. In the result, the instant criminal appeal stands allowed and accordingly disposed of.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.) 06.10.2026 Pawan/ Uploaded on 07.10.2026