GANPAT HAJAM vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - SARDHU MAHTO — B.A./4358/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 376D,323,342/34,IPC,4,POCSO,ACT. Next hearing: 19th June 2026.
CNR: JHHC010095392026
Filing Number
B.A./6186/2026
Filing Date
20-Mar-2026
Registration No
B.A./4358/2026
Registration Date
19-May-2026
Judge
Not Available
Coram
Not Available
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
WOMEN & CHILDREN ( 196 )
Sub-Category
Protection of children from sexual offences Act ( 14 )
Judicial Branch
Criminal Section
Last updated 18-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.GANPAT HAJAM
Adv. RITESH KUMAR
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - SARDHU MAHTO
Case History
-
19-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
19-Jun-2026
Fresh Filing (Admission)
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
-
16-Jun-2026
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat ChoudharyView PDF
Case Summary: B.A. 4358/2026 Case Adjourned — The Jharkhand High Court adjourned the bail withdrawal application of Ganpat Hajam (along with connected case B.A. 4983/2026) to 19.06.2026. The court sought clarification on whether withdrawn bail applications should be treated as "tied up matters" (barred from refiling before different benches), as inconsistent judicial practice existed across different benches. The court directed the Advocate General to appoint State counsel for assistance and invited submissions from the Advocates' Association on this procedural issue. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
16-Jun-2026
Fresh Filing (Admission)
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
-
15-Jun-2026
Fresh Filing (Admission)
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
-
09-Apr-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
20-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. B.A./4358/2026
Case Summary: B.A. 4358/2026 Case Adjourned — The Jharkhand High Court adjourned the bail withdrawal application of Ganpat Hajam (along with connected case B.A. 4983/2026) to 19.06.2026. The court sought clarification on whether withdrawn bail applications should be treated as "tied up matters" (barred from refiling before different benches), as inconsistent judicial practice existed across different benches. The court directed the Advocate General to appoint State counsel for assistance and invited submissions from the Advocates' Association on this procedural issue. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts