Jharkhand High Court
B.A./8912/2026 of GREGORY TOPNO Vs STATE OF JHARKHAND on 24 September 2026
) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8912 of 2026 Gregory Topno, aged about 42 years, S/o Late Piyus Topno, resident of village Rangrori Doyanger, P.O. Khatanga, P.S. Rania, District Khunti. … … 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:28800 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 8912 of 2026
Gregory Topno, aged about 42 years, S/o Late Piyus Topno, resident of village Rangrori Doyanger, P.O. Khatanga, P.S. Rania, District Khunti.
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
02/24.09.2026
Learned counsel for the petitioner is present.
2. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State Mr. Achinto Sen, APP, is also present.
3. Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 02.02.2026 in connection with S.T. Case No. 64 of 2026 arising out of Rania P.S. Case No. 07 of 2026, registered under Section 64(1) of B.N.S. Act, now pending in the court of learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-1st, Khunti.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 02.02.2026 and he has been falsely implicated in this case.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the re-statement of the victim shows a different version, however, she has stated about the commission of rape by the petitioner. The learned counsel further submits that as per the allegation, the rape was committed in the house of the petitioner, but the victim did not raise any alarm.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the victim is yet to be examined before the learned Court and the victim happens to be the neighbour of the petitioner, therefore, at this stage, the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail.
8. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and in view of the direct allegation against the petitioner, who happens to be the ( 2026:JHHC:28800 )
2
neighbour of the victim and the victim is yet to be examined before the learned Court, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is hereby rejected.
9. However, the State is directed to ensure that the witnesses are promptly produce before the learned Court.
10. 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.
11. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:24.09.2026 Nandini Date of Uploading: