Jharkhand High Court
Vishwanath Gope vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 April, 2026
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
2026:JHHC:10589
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 362 of 2026
Vishwanath Gope, S/o: Madkan Gope ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Victim ... ... Opposite Parties
---
CORAM :HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
—
04/13.04.2026
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner is present.
2. Learned counsel for the State Ms. Sushma Aind is present.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
in custody since 15.05.2025 in connection with Special POCSO Case
No. 19 of 2025 corresponding to Sonua P.S. Case No. 17 of 2025, for
the alleged offence registered under Sections 64(2), 65(1), 65(2) of the
BNS, 2023 and under Section 4 read with Section 6 of the POCSO
Act, 2012 and the charge has been framed under Section 64(2)(f),
62(2)(m), 65(1), 65(2), of the BNS and under Section 6 read with
Section 5(1), Section 6 read with Section 5(m), 5(n), 5(o) of POCSO
Act, 2012 pending in the court of learned Special Judge, POCSO Act,
West Singhbhum at Chaibasa.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in this case.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State
has opposed the prayer and has submitted that there is direct allegation
against the petitioner of committing rape upon two minors and both
the minors as per the impugned order have been examined before the
court. She has submitted that the impugned order has been passed on
19.09.2025 and a few witnesses must have been examined in the
meantime.
1
2026:JHHC:10589
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the serious nature of allegation wherein it is alleged that
the petitioner being the care taker of the Church has committed rape
on two minor girls and that the trial is in progress this Court is not
inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
8. The instant bail application is accordingly rejected.
9. However, the State is directed to ensure prompt production of
remaining witnesses.
10. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this
order to the Director, Prosecution as well as Superintendent of Police
of the concerned district to ensure compliance.
11. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court
concerned through ‘FAX/E-mail’.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
13.04.2026
Rakesh/-
Uploaded on:-14.04.2026
2