Jharkhand High Court
B.A./8358/2026 of SURESH MANJHI @ SURESH MURMU Vs STATE OF JHARKHAND on 5 October 2026
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8358 of 2026 Suresh Manjhi @ Suresh Murmu, aged about 40 years, son of Kishun Manjhi, Resident of village – Simradhab, P.O. Jharpo, P.S. tatijhariya District Hazaribag … … 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:29642
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 8358 of 2026
Suresh Manjhi @ Suresh Murmu, aged about 40 years, son of Kishun Manjhi, Resident of village – Simradhab, P.O. Jharpo, P.S. tatijhariya District Hazaribag
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Jalaj Pati Tiwari, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Santosh Kr. Shukla, APP
---
06/05.10.2026
Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Ichak P.S. Case No.197/2020, registered under Sections 302, 201 of IPC, now pending in the court of learned JM 1st Class, Hazaribag.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 15.07.2026 having no criminal antecedent. He further submits that though he has been named in the F.I.R., but there is no material to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence.
4. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner’s father was also an accused in the case and he faced the trial and he has been acquitted.
5. It further transpired that the case is of the year 2020 and the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was declared absconder. However, subsequently, the petitioner surrendered.
6. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the deceased died due to strangulation over her neck by saree and her dead body was found in a jungle. It has come during investigation that the petitioner along with the co-accused has been seen visiting the place from where the dead body was recovered on the alleged date of occurrence.
7. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner cannot take any 2026:JHHC:29642
advantage of the acquittal of the co-accused.
8. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the allegations made against the petitioner, this Court finds that the petitioner is named accused in the F.I.R and it is stated that there was quarrel between the parties and the petitioner had also threatened the informant party and also the fact that the petitioner has remained absconder for quite some time, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage.
9. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after 9 months.
10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:05.10.2026 Saurav/- Date of Uploading:06.10.2026