Jharkhand High Court
B.A./9268/2026 of GANESH SOY Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 5 October 2026
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9268 of 2026 Ganesh Soy, aged about - 35 years, S/o. Late Mangal Soy, R/o. Vill- Narayandih, P.O.- Raidih, P.S.- Seraikella, Dist: Seraikella-Kharsawan, Jharkhand … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …
2026:JHHC:29647
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 9268 of 2026
Ganesh Soy, aged about - 35 years, S/o. Late Mangal Soy, R/o. Vill- Narayandih, P.O.- Raidih, P.S.- Seraikella, Dist: Seraikella-Kharsawan, Jharkhand
…
…
Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
…
… Opp. Party
---
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner
: Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, Advocate
For the Opp. Party
: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
---
05/5th October 2026
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. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Seraikella P.S. Case No. 82/2024 (POCSO Case No. 25/2024) for the offence registered under Section 70(2) of BNS and Section 4 & 6 of POCSO Act, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Seraikella.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 19.07.2024. As per his information, all the witnesses have been examined, but the prosecution has not yet closed its evidence and the petitioner is in custody.
3. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the impugned order is dated 29.11.2024 and it appears from page 51 of the bail application that certain sample was handed over to the police for forensic examination. The learned counsel has also submitted that the victims have already been examined and they have supported the prosecution case. The trial is apparently at the fag end and the therefore, the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail at this stage. The present case is a case of gang rape.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties apparently all the prosecution witnesses have already been examined as stated by the
2026:JHHC:29647
learned counsel for the petitioner but it is not clear as to whether the forensic report has been forwarded to the concerned court or not. Since the victims have supported the prosecution case and the trial appears to be at fag end and the present case is a case of gang rape, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Hence, this bail application is hereby rejected.
5. However, the State is directed to ensure that the forensic report, if not already forwarded, be immediately forwarded to the concerned court.
6. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the FSL, Ranchi as well as Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance.
7. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Dated: 05.10.2026
Uploaded On: 06.10.2026
Mukul/-