SAMUEL MURMU vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - PRABHU DAYAL AGRAWAL — B.A./2107/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 376(3),IPC,6,POCSO,ACT. Disposed: Contested--Rejected on 15th April 2026.
CNR: JHHC010283882025
Filing Number
B.A./19075/2025
Filing Date
19-Aug-2025
Registration No
B.A./2107/2026
Registration Date
12-Mar-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
15-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Rejected
Last updated 22-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SAMUEL MURMU
Adv. SAURAV MAHTO
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - PRABHU DAYAL AGRAWAL
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
15-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat ChoudharyView PDF
Court Decision Summary The Jharkhand High Court rejected Samuel Murmu's bail application in a POCSO Act case involving alleged sexual abuse of a minor, finding that the trial is at an advanced stage and direct allegations exist against him. The court directed the State to promptly produce remaining witnesses before the trial court to expedite proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
15-Apr-2026
Admission
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
-
13-Apr-2026
Admission
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
-
17-Mar-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar SrivastavaView PDF
-
17-Mar-2026
Fresh Filing (Admission)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
-
16-Feb-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar ChoudharyView PDF
-
27-Nov-2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ambuj NathView PDF
-
02-Sep-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
19-Aug-2025
Case filed
Registration No. B.A./2107/2026
Court Decision Summary The Jharkhand High Court rejected Samuel Murmu's bail application in a POCSO Act case involving alleged sexual abuse of a minor, finding that the trial is at an advanced stage and direct allegations exist against him. The court directed the State to promptly produce remaining witnesses before the trial court to expedite proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts