UMESH MAHTO vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - SHWETA SINGH — B.A./2645/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 70(1),BNS. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 06th May 2026.
CNR: JHHC010085732026
Filing Number
B.A./5577/2026
Filing Date
13-Mar-2026
Registration No
B.A./2645/2026
Registration Date
26-Mar-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Coram
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE ( 121 )
Sub-Category
SECTION 483 ( 5 )
Judicial Branch
Criminal Section
Decision Date
06-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Allowed
Last updated 04-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.UMESH MAHTO
Adv. RAJ KISHORE SAHU,BIRENDRA KUMAR,BIRENDRA KUMAR, ,BIRENDRA KUMAR
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - SHWETA SINGH
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
06-May-2026
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat ChoudharyView PDF
The Jharkhand High Court granted bail to 22-year-old Umesh Mahto in a rape case (BNS Section 70(1)), finding insufficient evidence against him. The court noted he was not named in the FIR, was mentioned only in a co-accused's confession, never underwent TIP identification, and allegedly only participated in abducting the victim—not in the actual rape. Bail was set at Rs. 25,000 with two sureties of equal amount, subject to six conditions including non-interference with the victim and mandatory court attendance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
06-May-2026
Admission
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
-
18-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat ChoudharyView PDF
-
01-Apr-2026
Sri Ananda Sen, J.View PDF
-
01-Apr-2026
Fresh Filing (Admission)
Sri Ananda Sen, J.
-
25-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
13-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. B.A./2645/2026
The Jharkhand High Court granted bail to 22-year-old Umesh Mahto in a rape case (BNS Section 70(1)), finding insufficient evidence against him. The court noted he was not named in the FIR, was mentioned only in a co-accused's confession, never underwent TIP identification, and allegedly only participated in abducting the victim—not in the actual rape. Bail was set at Rs. 25,000 with two sureties of equal amount, subject to six conditions including non-interference with the victim and mandatory court attendance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts