DILIP GOPE vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - SATISH KUMAR KESHRI — B.A./5443/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 395,412,IPC. Disposed: Contested--Bail on 18th June 2026.
CNR: JHHC010187072026
Filing Number
B.A./12262/2026
Filing Date
01-Jun-2026
Registration No
B.A./5443/2026
Registration Date
15-Jun-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE ( 121 )
Sub-Category
SECTION 483 ( 5 )
Judicial Branch
Criminal Section
Decision Date
18-Jun-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Bail
Last updated 19-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.DILIP GOPE
Adv. KRIPA SHANKAR NANDA,NIRANJAN KR SINHA,NIRANJAN KR SINHA, ,RASHIKA BHARDWAJ,NIRANJAN KR SINHA
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - SATISH KUMAR KESHRI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
18-Jun-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar ChoudharyView PDF
Case Summary: The High Court of Jharkhand granted bail to Dilip Gope, accused of dacoity under Section 395 IPC in a 2008 case, setting a bail bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties of equal amount each. The court found merit in the petitioner's arguments that he was not named in the FIR, no Test Identification Parade was conducted before chargesheet filing, and no witnesses had been examined, while noting his prolonged custody since February 2025. Bail was granted subject to conditions including cooperation with trial, provision of contact details, and an undertaking not to intimidate witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
18-Jun-2026
Fresh Filing (Admission)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary
-
11-Jun-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
01-Jun-2026
Case filed
Registration No. B.A./5443/2026
Case Summary: The High Court of Jharkhand granted bail to Dilip Gope, accused of dacoity under Section 395 IPC in a 2008 case, setting a bail bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties of equal amount each. The court found merit in the petitioner's arguments that he was not named in the FIR, no Test Identification Parade was conducted before chargesheet filing, and no witnesses had been examined, while noting his prolonged custody since February 2025. Bail was granted subject to conditions including cooperation with trial, provision of contact details, and an undertaking not to intimidate witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts