Jharkhand High Court
B.A./9349/2026 of MONDAL MURMU Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 6 October 2026
) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.9349 of 2026 ------ Mondal Murmu, aged about 58 years, son of Thakur Murmu, resident of Dhunda Pahari, P.O. & P.S.-Littipara, District-Pakur, Jharkhand. .... .... …. 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:29863 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No.9349 of 2026
------ Mondal Murmu, aged about 58 years, son of Thakur Murmu, resident of Dhunda Pahari, P.O. & P.S.-Littipara, District-Pakur, Jharkhand.
.... .... …. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
.... .... .... Opposite Party
------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurav Mahto, Advocate
For the State
: Mr. Nawin Kr. Singh, Addl.P.P
------
Order No.02 Dated- 06-10-2026
Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with S.T. Case No.46 of 2026 arising out of Littipara P.S. Case No.66 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under sections 115(2), 109(1) & 126(2) of the BNS, 2023 and charges have been framed under Section 103(1), 115(2) of the BNS, 2023. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed murder of Wakil Marandi. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is then submitted that there is no eye witness to the occurrence. It is next submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent; as has been mentioned in para-19 of this bail application. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 22.12.2025, as has been mentioned in paragraph no.22 of the bail application. It is then submitted that the sole witness examined has supported the case of the prosecution. 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. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that keeping in view the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of committing murder of Wakil Marandi and the evidence that has already come on record through the PW-01, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail, therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not be released on bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner as well as the evidence that has already come on record through PW-01, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail, hence, this Court is not inclined to admit the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected at this stage.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 06/10/2026 Abhiraj/