Jharkhand High Court
B.A./8746/2026 of MD. RAKIB Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 7 October 2026
) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8746 of 2026 ------ 1. Md. Rakib, aged about 29 years, son of Md. Nausad, resident of Chandmari, Ward No. 9, P.O. & P.S.- Chakradharpur, Dist.-West Singhbhum, Jharkhand 2. Md. Izhar Hussain @ Izhar Ansari, aged about 22 years, son
( 2026:JHHC:30003 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 8746 of 2026
------
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.
1. Md. Rakib, aged about 29 years, son of Md. Nausad, resident of Chandmari, Ward No. 9, P.O. & P.S.- Chakradharpur, Dist.-West Singhbhum, Jharkhand
2. Md. Izhar Hussain @ Izhar Ansari, aged about 22 years, son of Gulzar Hussain, resident of Malgodam Road, P.O. & P.S.-Udit Nagar, Dist.-Raurkela, Odisha
… Petitioners
Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Pradyot Chatterjee, Advocate For the State
: Mr. Gautam Rakesh, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.03 Dated- 07.10.2026
Heard the parties.
The petitioners have moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with S.T. No. 619 of 2026 arising out of Bank More P.S. Case No.34 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under sections 109/111(2) (ii)/111(4) of the B.N.S., 2023 and under Section 25(6)/27 of Arms Act.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners attempted to murder the informant and others by firing upon them and they came to kill Iqbal Khan on the instruction of Prince Khan, Gopi Khan, Godwin and Banti. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are all false. It is then submitted that the petitioners are not named in the FIR but without putting them on T.I. Parade as has been mentioned in paragraph no.03 of the supplementary affidavit, charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioners. It is next submitted that no witness has been examined so far. It is then submitted that the petitioners have been in custody since 18.05.2026, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 16 of the bail application. It is next submitted that the petitioners undertake to cooperate with the trial of the case and further undertake that they will not annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be admitted to bail.
The learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for bail.
Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am inclined to enlarge the abovenamed petitioners on bail. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.S.J.-VI, Dhanbad, in connection with S.T. No. 619 of 2026 arising out of Bank More P.S. Case No.34 of 2026 with the condition that the petitioners will cooperate with the trial of the case and will furnish their mobile numbers and a copy of their Aadhar Cards in the court below with the undertaking that they will not change their mobile numbers during the trial of the case, with further condition that they will not annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
07.10.2026 Gunjan-