Jharkhand High Court
B.A./9022/2026 of LALKU GOPE Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 28 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9022 of 2026 Lalku Gope, age about 31 years, son of Ropa Gope, Resident of Village – Bagru, P.O. + P.S. – Bagru, District – Lohardaga (Jharkhand) … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite
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:29080
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 9022 of 2026
Lalku Gope, age about 31 years, son of Ropa Gope, Resident of Village – Bagru, P.O. + P.S. – Bagru, District – Lohardaga (Jharkhand)
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Ms. Aayushi Aman, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, APP
--- 03/28.09.2026
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 Bagru P.S. Case No.05/2024, corresponding to POCSO Case No.12 of 2024, registered under Sections 341, 323, 342, 363, 366 (A), 376 (D) of Indian Penal Code and Section 06/08 of POCSO Act, now pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge – I – cum – Spl. Judge, POCSO Act, Lohardaga.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected earlier on merit on 08.09.2025 in B.A. No. 7607 of 2025. The petitioner is in custody since 25.02.2024 and the trial has not yet concluded.
4. Upon a query, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of 15 charge – sheet witnesses, 11 have been examined so far and the next date in the case is on 30.09.2026.
5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the present case relates to allegation of gang rape and therefore, the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail at this stage.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the earlier bail application was rejected on merits and trial is at an advanced stage, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
7. However, the State is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses are promptly produced before the court.
2026:JHHC:29080
8. 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.
9. If any FSL report is awaited, the same be also forwarded to the court concerned at the earliest.
10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:28.09.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:30.09.2026