VISHAL TOPPO vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - AJAY KR PATHAK — B.A./950/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 367(2),(n),376(3),IPC,4(2),6,POCSO,ACT. Disposed: Contested--Rejected on 13th April 2026.
CNR: JHHC010005882026
Filing Number
B.A./398/2026
Filing Date
08-Jan-2026
Registration No
B.A./950/2026
Registration Date
02-Feb-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Coram
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
WOMEN & CHILDREN ( 196 )
Sub-Category
Protection of children from sexual offences Act ( 14 )
Judicial Branch
Criminal Section
Decision Date
13-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Rejected
Last updated 20-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.VISHAL TOPPO
Adv. PRASHANT KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA,TARU GUPTA,TARU GUPTA, ,VISHWAJEETJEE CHATURVEDI,TARU GUPTA
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - AJAY KR PATHAK
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
13-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat ChoudharyView PDF
The High Court of Jharkhand rejected the bail application of Vishal Toppo, who has been in custody since August 2024 on serious POCSO charges involving a 15-year-old victim who became pregnant, citing the severity of the allegations. However, the court directed the State to ensure prompt production of remaining witnesses during trial, as only one witness had been examined over a year after charges were framed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
13-Apr-2026
Admission
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
-
09-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat ChoudharyView PDF
-
12-Mar-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar ChoudharyView PDF
-
27-Feb-2026
Fresh Filing (Admission)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar
-
20-Jan-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
08-Jan-2026
Case filed
Registration No. B.A./950/2026
The High Court of Jharkhand rejected the bail application of Vishal Toppo, who has been in custody since August 2024 on serious POCSO charges involving a 15-year-old victim who became pregnant, citing the severity of the allegations. However, the court directed the State to ensure prompt production of remaining witnesses during trial, as only one witness had been examined over a year after charges were framed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts