B.A./8035/2026 of SANCHARWA NAGESIA Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 6 October 2026

[2026:JHHC:29908] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

B.A. No.8035 of 2026

------ Sancharwa Nagesia, aged about 20 years, S/o Late Bhade Nagesia, R/o Village- Kekrang Bartoli, P.S. & P.O- Peshrar, District- Lohardaga, Jharkhand. .... .... …. Petitioner

Versus The State of Jharkhand

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

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

------

For the Petitioner : Ms. Juhi Kumari, Advocate For the State

: Mr. Sudhir Kr. Mahato, Addl.P.P.

------ Order No:-02 Dated:-06-10-2026

Heard the parties.

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Peshrar P.S. Case No.07 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 23 of 2026 and the S.T. Case No. 17 of 2026 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 61(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.

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 committed murder of Laxman Nagesia, Bikni Nagesia and Ramvilas Nagesia on the ground that they were practicing ‘Witch Craft’. It is next submitted that the so far five witnesses have been examined out of whom P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile by the prosecution and the P.W.3 has not supported the testimony of the P.W.1 to the effect that the latch of door of her room was opened by P.W.3 in the morning. It is next submitted that in para-06, P.W.1 has categorically stated that the petitioner and two other co-accused persons namely -Bindeshwar Nagesia and Sancharwa Nagesia have committed murder of the said three deceased persons, but in para 17, she has stated that she has deposed in court on the basis of what she heard; which goes to show that she is not an eye-witness to the occurrence. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 11.10.2025 as mentioned in para-15 of the instant bail application. It is also submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-13 of the instant bail application. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail. Learned counsel appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that P.W.1 has categorically stated that the petitioner and the co- accused committed murder of the three deceased persons of this case, but absolutely there is no cross-examination on this aspect of her and from para-17 of cross-examination, it is not clear that in what respect she has deposed that line and the same cannot be used out of context to question the veracity of the testimony of P.W.1 in Para-06; when there is absolutely no cross-examination, specifically regarding the direct evidence of commission of murder of the three deceased person of the case, by the petitioner and the co-accused persons. It is next submitted that in view of overwhelming evidence that has come through the testimony of P.W.1, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence, if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be released on bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of committing murder of three persons along with the co- accused persons as well as the chance of his absconding and tampering with the evidence, if released on bail, this Court is not inclined to admit the above-named 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.) Dated:- 06.10.2026 Amar/