MANGAL KALINDI ALIAS MAKDA vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - NEHALA SHARMIN — B.A./1382/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 376,AB/511,IPC,6/18,POCSO,ACT. Disposed: Contested--Rejected on 15th April 2026.
CNR: JHHC010295352025
Filing Number
B.A./19860/2025
Filing Date
26-Aug-2025
Registration No
B.A./1382/2026
Registration Date
12-Feb-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.MANGAL KALINDI ALIAS MAKDA
Adv. SAURAV MAHTO
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - NEHALA SHARMIN
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
15-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat ChoudharyView PDF
The Jharkhand High Court rejected the bail application of Mangal Kalindi, who is accused of sexually abusing a child under 12 years of age under Section 376AB IPC and POCSO Act sections. The court found direct allegations against the petitioner and deemed the offence heinous, refusing to enlarge him on bail despite his claim of false implication. However, the court directed the State to ensure prompt production of remaining witnesses to expedite the trial completion. 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
Fresh Filing (Admission)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Prasad
-
10-Mar-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay PrasadView PDF
-
10-Mar-2026
Fresh Filing (Admission)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Prasad
-
01-Dec-2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ambuj NathView PDF
-
15-Sep-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
26-Aug-2025
Case filed
Registration No. B.A./1382/2026
The Jharkhand High Court rejected the bail application of Mangal Kalindi, who is accused of sexually abusing a child under 12 years of age under Section 376AB IPC and POCSO Act sections. The court found direct allegations against the petitioner and deemed the offence heinous, refusing to enlarge him on bail despite his claim of false implication. However, the court directed the State to ensure prompt production of remaining witnesses to expedite the trial completion. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts