Jharkhand High Court
B.A./8247/2026 of CHOKRO DEOGAM Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 5 October 2026
) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8247 of 2026 Chokro Deogam aged about 25 years S/o Sadhu Charan Deogam R/o Vill. Barayndeya, Banagutu P.O. Bara Guria, P.S. Muffasil Chaibasa Dist. West Singhbhum (Jharkhand) … … 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:29761 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8247 of 2026
Chokro Deogam aged about 25 years S/o Sadhu Charan Deogam R/o Vill. Barayndeya, Banagutu P.O. Bara Guria, P.S. Muffasil Chaibasa Dist. West Singhbhum (Jharkhand)
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
…
… Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Bhaskar Trivedi, Advocate
: Mr. Bipin Bihari, Advocate
: Mr. Shipra Sonam, Advocate
: Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Ms. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P.
---
04/05.10.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Mahila Chaibasa P.S. Case No. 05 of 2025, Spl. POCSO Case No. 28/2025 for the offences registered under Sections 65(1) of the B.N.S. 2023 and section 04(2) of the POCSO Act, 2012, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge- II Cum Spcl. Judge, POCSO Act Cases, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected on merits in B.A. No. 8211 of 2025 vide order dated 24.09.2025. As per his information and as per the report received from the court concerned which contains the order dated 23.09.2026 also, out of 12 witnesses, 11 have already been examined and the next date fixed in this case is 16.10.2026. The learned counsel submits that only the concerned Magistrate who has recorded the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS is remaining to be examined.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that now the trial is at the fag end, the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that only one witness to yet to be examined before the court and the trial is at the fag end, this court is not inclined to
( 2026:JHHC:29761 )
2
enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. It is directed that the remaining witness be also examined shortly, if possible, on the next date , that is on 16.10.2026.
6. With the aforesaid observation, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.
7. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through FAX/e-nail.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 05.10.2026 Uploaded on 06.10.2026 Binit/