B.A./9341/2026 of RAJNI RAWANI ALIAS RAJNI KUMARI Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 6 October 2026

( 2026:JHHC:29857 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

B.A. No.9341 of 2026

------ Rajni Rawani @ Rajni Kumari, aged about 35 years, wife of Rakesh Kumar Rawani, resident of Near Shiv Mandir, Bansjora Basti, P.O.- Bansjora, P.S.-Loyabad, District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand.

.... .... …. Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

.... .... .... Opposite Party

------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate

: Ms. Diksha Dwivedi, Advocate

: Ms. Nehal Mehta, Advocate

: Mr. Kaushal Kumar, Advocate

For the State

: Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, Addl.P.P

------

Order No.02 Dated- 06-10-2026

Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Loyabad P.S. Case No. 10 of 2026 corresponding to S.T. Case No.674 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 126(2), 118(2), 117(2), 109(1), 103(1), 352, 351(2) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was a member of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common objection of the assembly being armed with deadly weapons, committed murder of Kishun Rawani and attempted to murder the informant namely Bishnu Pramanik. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is then submitted that the deceased Kishun Rawani is the elder brother of the father-in-law of the petitioner. It is also submitted that for the self-same occurrence, from the side of the petitioner, Loyabad P.S. Case No.11 of 2026 has been registered and yet another case that is Loyabad P.S. Case No.12 of 2026 has also been registered. It is then submitted that though, in the FIR, the petitioner has been cited as an outsider, but in fact, the petitioner is the resident of Bansjora Basti near Shiv Mandir which is place of occurrence itself and the petitioner is not a stranger to the village as was made out in the FIR. It is also submitted that except this case and Loyabad P.S. Case No.12 of 2026 which has been registered for the self-same occurrence, the petitioner has no other criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in para-28 of this bail application. It is further submitted that charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner, but no witness has been examined as yet. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 21.05.2026 as mentioned in para-01 of the instant bail application. It is then submitted that the co-accused has already been granted bail by this Court vide order 03.09.2026 in B.A. No.8174 of 2026. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the trial of the case and also undertakes not to annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Considering the facts of this case, the above-named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVI, Dhanbad in connection with Loyabad P.S. Case No. 10 of 2026 corresponding to S.T. Case No.674 of 2026 with the condition that she will cooperate with the trial of the case and furnish her mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card in the court below with an undertaking that she will not change her mobile number during the trial of the case and she will not annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 06/10/2026 Abhiraj/