Jharkhand High Court
B.A./9084/2026 of JAMES SANGA Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 29 September 2026
) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9084 of 2026 James Sanga, aged about 52 years, son of Late Ignasius Sanga, resident of Village- Balikat, Rajaulatu, P.O.-Rajaulatu, P.S.-Namkum, District- Ranchi … … 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:29223 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 9084 of 2026
James Sanga, aged about 52 years, son of Late Ignasius Sanga, resident of Village- Balikat, Rajaulatu, P.O.-Rajaulatu, P.S.-Namkum, District- Ranchi
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
02/29.09.2026
Learned counsel for the petitioner is present.
2. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. Party-State is also present.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 18.04.2026 in connection with Spl. POCSO Case No. 40 of 2026 arising out of Ranchi Sadar P.S. Case No. 187 of 2026, registered under Section 74, 75(2), 76, 78(2), 79 of the BNS and Section 8 & 12 of the POCSO Act, now pending in the court of learned A.J.C.-IV-cum-Spl. Judge POCSO Act, Ranchi.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner happens to be the friend of the victim’s father. He has further submitted that as per the allegation, the petitioner entered into the room of the victim used inappropriate language and started molesting her.
5. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that three out of six witnesses have been examined so far. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the next date in the case is fixed on 01.10.2026.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the petitioner is 52 years of age and the victim is 17 years old and she happens to be informant of the case making direct allegation against the petitioner and she has supported the case against the petitioner.
7. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the direct allegation against the petitioner, this Court is ( 2026:JHHC:29223 )
2
not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.
8. However, the State is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses are promptly produced before the Court including on 01.10.2026.
9. Learned counsel for the state is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district and the Director Prosecution, to ensure compliance.
10. 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 Nandini Date of Uploading: