Jharkhand High Court
B.A./6020/2026 of HAFIJUDDIN MOMIN Vs STATE OF JHARKHAND on 7 October 2026
) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 6020 of 2026 ------ Hafijuddin Momin, aged about 62 years, son of late Ketab Momin, resident of Village-Manihari Tola, Bhatta, P.O.- Fudkipur, Dakshin Sarfarajganj, P.S.-Radhanagar, Dist.- Sahebganj, Jharkhand … Petitioner
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
( 2026:JHHC:29998 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 6020 of 2026
------ Hafijuddin Momin, aged about 62 years, son of late Ketab Momin, resident of Village-Manihari Tola, Bhatta, P.O.- Fudkipur, Dakshin Sarfarajganj, P.S.-Radhanagar, Dist.- Sahebganj, Jharkhand … Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate For the State
: Mr. Naveen Kr. Ganjhu, Addl. P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Deepak Kr. Chouhan, Advocate
: Ms. Raj Lakshmi Sharma, Advocate
: Mr. Jabir Ansari, Advocate ------ Order No.05 Dated- 07.10.2026
Heard the parties.
The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with S.T. No. 65 of 2026 arising out of Radhanagar P.S. Case No.434 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under sections 191(2)/ 191(3)/ 115(2)/ 117(2)/ 118(1)/ 109(1)/ 103(1)/ 126(2)/352 of the B.N.S., 2023.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was member of unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of the assembly committed murder of Belal Momin and attempted to murder Jalal Momin. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 04.11.2025, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 01 of the bail application. It is next submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.
Learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the informant on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that though in the FIR, it has been mentioned that the assault upon Belal Momin was made by Jiyaual Momin and Hafizuddin Momin but the witness Uttam Kumar Mandal whose statement appears in paragraph no. 20 of the case diary has stated that inter alia that the petitioner assaulted Belal Momin and Jalal Momin with knife. It is further submitted that the injured Jalal whose statement appears in paragraph no.78 of the case diary has stated that Belal was assaulted by the petitioner and Jiyaual with knife, Sanaual with bamboo and Habib with hasua. It is lastly submitted that in view of direct allegation against the petitioner, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be admitted to bail.
Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail, this Court is not inclined to admit the petitioner on bail at this stage.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the abovenamed petitioner is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
07.10.2026 Gunjan-