SUNIL MAHTO vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - SUNIL KUMAR DUBEY — B.A./2660/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 376/450,IPC. Disposed: Contested--Rejected on 05th May 2026.
CNR: JHHC010313712025
Filing Number
B.A./21071/2025
Filing Date
09-Sep-2025
Registration No
B.A./2660/2026
Registration Date
26-Mar-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Coram
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE ( 121 )
Sub-Category
SECTION 483 ( 5 )
Judicial Branch
Criminal Section
Decision Date
05-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Rejected
Last updated 04-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SUNIL MAHTO
Adv. AJAY KR PATHAK
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - SUNIL KUMAR DUBEY
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
05-May-2026
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat ChoudharyView PDF
Case Summary: The Jharkhand High Court rejected Sunil Mahto's bail application in a criminal case involving charges under Sections 376/450 (sexual assault and criminal intimidation). The court found direct allegations against the petitioner sufficiently serious to deny bail, despite the trial's protracted nature—he had been in custody since November 2024 with charges framed in June 2025, and two of five prosecution witnesses remained unexamined. The court directed the State to ensure prompt production of remaining witnesses at the next trial date (11.05.2026). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
01-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar SrivastavaView PDF
-
01-Apr-2026
Fresh Filing (Admission)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
-
08-Jan-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar ChoudharyView PDF
-
07-Oct-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
09-Sep-2025
Case filed
Registration No. B.A./2660/2026
Case Summary: The Jharkhand High Court rejected Sunil Mahto's bail application in a criminal case involving charges under Sections 376/450 (sexual assault and criminal intimidation). The court found direct allegations against the petitioner sufficiently serious to deny bail, despite the trial's protracted nature—he had been in custody since November 2024 with charges framed in June 2025, and two of five prosecution witnesses remained unexamined. The court directed the State to ensure prompt production of remaining witnesses at the next trial date (11.05.2026). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts