Jharkhand High Court
B.A./8917/2026 of BADAL MANJHI Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 24 September 2026
) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8917 of 2026 Badal Manjhi, aged about 29 years, S/o Laxman Manjhi, R/o- Parba Behratoli, P.S.-Jaldega, P.O.-Parba, District-Simdega, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party
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:28799 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 8917 of 2026
Badal Manjhi, aged about 29 years, S/o Laxman Manjhi, R/o- Parba Behratoli, P.S.-Jaldega, P.O.-Parba, District-Simdega, Jharkhand.
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
05/24.09.2026
Learned counsel for the petitioner is present.
2. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P., is also present.
3. Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 30.04.2026 in connection with Jaldega P.S. Case No. 29 of 2026 corresponding to POCSO Case No. 14 of 2026, registered under Section 65(1) of the BNS and Section 4, 6 and 8 of the POCSO Act and charge has been framed under Section 70(1) of the B.N.S. and Section 4, 6 of the POCSO Act, now pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge Cum Special Judge (POCSO Act), Simdega.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 30.04.2026 and since the victim has already been examined alongwith few other witnesses, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
6. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of seven charge-sheet witnesses three have been examined including the doctor also. He submits that the next date in the trial is on 13.10.2026.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that it is a case of gang rape and the victim and the doctor have also supported the allegation and therefore, the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail. The charge has been framed for offence under Section 70(1) of B.N.S. and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act.
( 2026:JHHC:28799 )
2
8. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the fact that there are serious charges against the petitioner and trial is in progress, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected.
9. However, the State is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses are promptly produced before the Court. The next date as indicated by the petitioner is on 13.10.2026.
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: