Jharkhand High Court
B.A./8872/2026 of RAJEN GOPE @ RAJAN GOPE @ A.K GOPE Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 23 September 2026
) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8872 of 2026 Rajen Gope @ Rajan Gope @ A.K. Gope, aged about 27 Years, Son of Bhim Gope, resident of village-Bara Bhuta, P.O.- Barkela P.S.- Chaibasa Muffasil, District- West Singhbhum (Jharkhand) … … 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:28685 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8872 of 2026
Rajen Gope @ Rajan Gope @ A.K. Gope, aged about 27 Years, Son of Bhim Gope, resident of village-Bara Bhuta, P.O.- Barkela P.S.- Chaibasa Muffasil, District- West Singhbhum (Jharkhand)
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
… … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
02/23.09.2026 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 Mahila (Chaibasa) P.S. Case No. 07 of 2024, Corresponding to Spl. POCSO Case No. 49 of 2024, for the offences registered under Sections 65 (1), 70 (2) of the B.N.S. 2023 and section 4/6 of the POCSO Act, charge has been framed under section 64 (2) (m), 70 (2) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 06 r/w 5 (g) and 5 (1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum- Spl. Judge POCSO Act Cases, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 18.10.2024 and charge has been framed as back as on 06.03.2025 and trial has not yet concluded. He submits that 5 witnesses have been examined so far and considering the custody of the petitioner, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
4. The learned counsel for the State Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that this is case of gang rape and the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail. He submits that the age of the victim is only 13 years. However, the State shall produce the witnesses as and when directed.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that trial is at the advance stage in as much as 05 witnesses have already been examined and it is case of gang rape, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, at this stage.
6. However, the State is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses be promptly produced before the court.
( 2026:JHHC:28685 ) 2
7. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned District and to the Director, Prosecution to ensure compliance.
8. In case, the remaining witnesses are not produced before the court, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after six months from today.
9. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through FAX/e-mail.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 23.09.2026 Uploaded on 28.09.2026 Binit/