Jharkhand High Court
B.A./8995/2026 of NISHANT @ NISHANT KUMAR SINGH Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 7 October 2026
) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8995 of 2026 Nishant @ Nishant Kumar Singh, aged about 34 years, son of Anil Kumar Singh, resident of village - Kanti, P.O. & P.S. - Kanti, District - Muzaffarpur, Bihar. … …Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand.
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:30098 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8995 of 2026
Nishant @ Nishant Kumar Singh, aged about 34 years, son of Anil Kumar Singh, resident of village - Kanti, P.O. & P.S. - Kanti, District - Muzaffarpur, Bihar.
… …Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand.
… … …Opp. Party ------
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Amlan Palit, Advocate For the State
: Ms. Kumari Rashmi, Addl. P.P. ------
Order No:- 03, Dated:- 07th October, 2026
Heard the parties.
This is the second journey of the petitioner with the prayer for grant of regular bail.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of regular bail was rejected vide order dated 07.11.2025 passed in B.A. No. 3642 of 2025 by a co-ordinate bench of this Court and the fresh ground is that two witnesses have been examined during trial of the case and both of them have supported the case of the prosecution. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 09.12.2024, hence, the petitioner be admitted to bail.
Learned Addl. P.P. and learned counsel for the informant on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that since both witnesses of the case, have supported the case of the prosecution, hence, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence, if released on bail in view of the overwhelming evidence that has already come against him during the trial. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not be admitted to bail.
Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the evidence that has already come on record against the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that merely because the petitioner has been in custody for some more time, is not a sufficient ground to re- consider the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail which has already been rejected on merit earlier.
Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated – 07.10.2026 Aditi