Vishal Toppo vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
2026 Latest Caselaw 2978 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Vishal Toppo vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party on 13 April, 2026

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

                                                                  2026:JHHC:10556

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                          B.A. No. 950 of 2026

    Vishal Toppo, son of Deepak Toppo                 ...      ...     Petitioner
                                Versus
    The State of Jharkhand                            ...      ...    Opp. Party

                        ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Ajay Kumar Pathak, Advocate

---

th 06/13 April 2026

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Special POCSO Case No. 140/2024 arising out of Sadar P.S. Case No. 359/2024 for the offence registered under Section 376(2)(n)/376(3) and 4/6 of the POCSO Act, now said to have been pending in the court of learned A.J.C.-IV, Ranchi.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 27.08.2024 and the charge was framed as back as on 30.11.2024, but the first witness was examined only after more than one year i.e. on 15.12.2025, that too the doctor. He submits that there are altogether six charge-sheet witnesses. He submits that considering the custody of the petitioner, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

3. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the victim was 15 years of age and there is direct allegation against the petitioner and she became pregnant. However, the learned counsel is not in a position to explain as to why the witnesses are not being promptly produced by the State.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the seriousness of offence arising out of which the victim became pregnant and there is direct allegation against the petitioner, this Court is not

2026:JHHC:10556

inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is rejected.

5. However, the State is directed to ensure prompt production of the remaining witnesses during trial.

6. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Director, Prosecution as well as Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure prompt production of the remaining witnesses on the dates as may be fixed by the learned court.

7. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through 'e-mail/FAX'.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 13.04.2026 Uploaded on: 13.04.2026 Mukul/-