Dismissed¶¶17

Manjit Toppo v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC14 Jul 2026B.A./5050/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, B.A. No. 5050 of 2026, Neutral Citation (2026:JHHC:20850), decided 14.07.2026 by Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. Bail application of Manjit Toppo (in custody since 16.04.2026) for offences under Section 107 of the B.N.S. 2023 (T. Tanger P.S. Case No.43 of 2025) rejected on the ground of direct and specific allegation and call record examined through forensic; State directed to produce remaining witnesses and FSL report and to communicate the order to Director, Prosecution and S.P. of the concerned district.

What did the court decide?

Bail rejected: there is a direct and specific allegation against the petitioner and the call record has already been examined through forensic; the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. ¶¶17

Manjit Toppo Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:20850)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5050 of 2026

¶3

Manjit Toppo, aged about 19 years, S/o Sarju Lohra

¶4

… … Petitioner

¶5

The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party ---

¶6

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶7

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. K. S. Nanda, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P. For the Informant : Md. Ayub Ansari, Advocate

¶9

¶10

03 /14.07.2026

¶11

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

¶12

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 16.04.2026 in connection with T. Tanger P.S. Case No.43 of 2025, for the offences registered under Section 107 of the B.N.S. 2023, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Simdega.

¶13

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 16.04.2026 and chargesheet has already been submitted in this case. He further submits that as per the allegation, the petitioner was having an affair with the deceased and in the F.I.R. it has been mentioned that she was 17 years of age and her objectionable videos were made viral and the petitioner used to trouble her by repeated calls and ultimately, she committed suicide on 15.07.2025. The learned counsel submits that no video has been recovered during investigation and the petitioner has been falsely been implicated in this case.

¶14

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the F.S.L. report in connection with the mobile has already been received, which has been placed on record. The learned counsel further submits that there were repeated calls between the petitioner and the deceased just before the date of occurrence and the petitioner used to trouble the victim beyond a point

¶15

and ultimately, she committed suicide and there are other witnesses on record, who have supported the prosecution case.

¶16

5. The learned counsel for the Informant has also supported the submissions made by the learned counsel for the State.

¶17

6. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the fact that there is direct and specific allegation made against the petitioner and call record has already been examined through forensic, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

¶18

7. The State is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses are promptly produced and the report from FSL is also produced before the concerned court.

¶19

8. The learned counsel for the State is directed to communicated this order to the Director, Prosecution and Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance.

¶20

9. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e-mail.

¶21

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶22

Dated: 14.07.2026 Uploaded on 14.07.26

¶23

Jay/

¶24

Manjit Toppo v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjit Toppo v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ansul Arif Alias Asnul Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nirmal Oraon Vs State of Jharkhand

Manish Tudu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lakhan Singh Hembrom Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kailash Kumar Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kawaldi Das Vs State of Jharkhand