RAMESHWAR GOPE vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - VANDANA BHARTI — B.A./3726/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 137(2),64(2),(m),65(I),BNS,4(2),6,POCSO,ACT. Disposed: Contested--Rejected on 04th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: JHHC010089382026

Filing Number

B.A./5784/2026

Filing Date

17-Mar-2026

Registration No

B.A./3726/2026

Registration Date

30-Apr-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

04-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Rejected

Last updated 04-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 137(2),64(2),(m),65(I),BNS,4(2),6,POCSO,ACT

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAMESHWAR GOPE

    Adv. MANDEO BHAGAT

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - VANDANA BHARTI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 04-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat ChoudharyView PDF

    Case Summary: B.A. No. 3726/2026 The Jharkhand High Court rejected Rameshwar Gope's bail application in a POCSO case involving a 15-year-old victim. Although the petitioner characterized the incident as a "love affair," the court found direct allegations against him and noted that prosecution witnesses had already supported the state's case. The court directed the state to promptly produce remaining witnesses before the trial court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 04-May-2026

    Fresh Filing (Admission)

    Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary

  4. 06-Apr-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 17-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. B.A./3726/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: B.A. No. 3726/2026 The Jharkhand High Court rejected Rameshwar Gope's bail application in a POCSO case involving a 15-year-old victim. Although the petitioner characterized the incident as a "love affair," the court found direct allegations against him and noted that prosecution witnesses had already supported the state's case. The court directed the state to promptly produce remaining witnesses before the trial court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case