Jharkhand High Court
B.A./8464/2026 of JOHAN MUNDU Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 6 October 2026
) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8464 of 2026 ------ Johan Mundu, aged about 19 years, son of Heran Masih Mundu, Resident of Village –Somar Bazar Murhu, Post Office & Police Station –Murhu, District –Khunti, State –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:29936 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 8464 of 2026
------ Johan Mundu, aged about 19 years, son of Heran Masih Mundu, Resident of Village –Somar Bazar Murhu, Post Office & Police Station –Murhu, District –Khunti, State –Jharkhand.
… Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate For the State
: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.03 Dated- 06.10.2026
Heard the parties.
The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Murhu P.S. Case No.37 of 2026 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 288 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under sections 109(1)/118(2)/333/3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and under Section 25(1-b)a/26/27 of the Arms Act.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons attempted to murder the informant. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and there is direct allegation against the co-accused –Khudiram Oreya of firing upon the informant and the petitioner has been implicated in this case on the basis of confessional statement of Khutiram Oreya and his own confessional statement. It is next submitted that the petitioner has not been put on Test Identification Parade as has been mentioned in para-4 of the supplementary affidavit dated 23.09.2026 and without putting him on Test Identification Parade, charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 27.04.2026, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 25 of the bail application. It is further submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the trial of the case and further undertakes that he 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 petitioner 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 above-named petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released 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 learned J.M. -1st Class, Khunti, in connection with Murhu P.S. Case No.37 of 2026 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 288 of 2026 with the condition that the petitioner will co- operate with the trial of the case and will furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the trial of the case, with further condition that he 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
Sonu/