Jharkhand High Court
B.A./9105/2026 of RAM PRATAP GUPTA ALIAS RAMPRATAP GUPTA Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 29 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9105 of 2026 Ram Pratap Gupta @ Rampratap Gupta, aged about 74 years, son of late Raghunath Saw, resident of Bank Colony, Sudna, P.O. – Sudna, P.S. – Town Daltonganj, District – Palamau, Daltonganj … … Petitioner 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.
2026:JHHC:29341
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 9105 of 2026
Ram Pratap Gupta @ Rampratap Gupta, aged about 74 years, son of late Raghunath Saw, resident of Bank Colony, Sudna, P.O. – Sudna, P.S. – Town Daltonganj, District – Palamau, Daltonganj
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, APP
---
06/29.09.2026
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 Daltonganj (Mahila) P.S. Case No.45 of 2024 in POCSO Case No.11 of 2025, registered under Sections 64 (2)
(d) , 74, 126 (2), 127 (2), 3 (5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, now pending in the court of learned Exclusive Special Judge, POCSO Palamau at Daltonganj.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that altogether 5 girls have been examined and all of them have turned hostile. He submits that out of 13 witnesses, 5 have already been examined so far. He has also submitted that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected earlier in B.A. 1483 of 2025 vide order dated 21.02.2025.
4. Learned counsel for the informant/victim has submitted that the victim has no surviving grievance against the petitioner and he is representing only one of the victims, although as per the allegations there are 2 victims.
5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is very serious allegation against the petitioner and the girls were residing in Vikas International Balika Grih and they were being used by the petitioner for the alleged offence. He has also submitted that further witnesses are yet to be examined by the learned court.
2026:JHHC:29341
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the seriousness of the allegation against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Apparently, material witnesses are yet to be examined and the victims are minor residing in Vikas International Balika Grih. Accordingly, this bail application is rejected.
7. At this, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 01.12.2024 and some observation be made for expeditious trial.
8. Accordingly, the State is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses are promptly produced before the court.
9. The learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district and also to Director, Prosecution to ensure compliance.
10. In case, the witnesses are not produced, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after 6 months.
11. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:29.09.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:30.09.2026