Jharkhand High Court
B.A./9267/2026 of MOHIT SINGH Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 5 October 2026
) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9267 of 2026 ------ 1. Mohit Singh, aged about 21 years, son of Ashok Singh, resident of Sundernagar, Near Kali Mandir, P.O. & P.S.- Sundernagar, Town-Jamshedpur, Dist.-Singhbhum East 2. Rajnish Kumar Singh, aged about 24 years,
( 2026:JHHC:29694 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 9267 of 2026
------
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.
1. Mohit Singh, aged about 21 years, son of Ashok Singh, resident of Sundernagar, Near Kali Mandir, P.O. & P.S.- Sundernagar, Town-Jamshedpur, Dist.-Singhbhum East
2. Rajnish Kumar Singh, aged about 24 years, son of Nagendar Singh, resident of Harharguttu, Hari, Hari Prasad Bagan, P.O. & P.S.-Bagbera, Town-Jamshedpur, Dist.-Singhbhum East, Jharkhand
… Petitioners
Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Jitendra N. Upadhyay, Advocate For the State
: Mr. Anup P. Topno, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 05.10.2026
Heard the parties.
The petitioners have moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Bagbera P.S. Case No.50 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under sections 126(2)/115(2)/117(2)/109/3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners in furtherance of their common intention attempted to murder Sachin Yadav and Pankaj Tiwary. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are all false and the genesis of the occurrence is a motor vehicle accident. It is then submitted that though charge sheet has been submitted in this case but no witness has been examined as yet. It is next submitted that the petitioner no.1 has no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in paragraph no.20 of the bail application. It is then submitted that the petitioners have been in custody since 13.07.2026, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 11 of the bail application. It is next submitted that the petitioners undertake to cooperate with the trial of the case and further undertake that they 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 petitioners 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 abovenamed petitioners on bail. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M. 1st Class, Jamshedpur, in connection with Bagbera P.S. Case No.50 of 2026 with the condition that the petitioners will cooperate with the trial of the case and will furnish their mobile numbers and a copy of their Aadhar Cards in the court below with the undertaking that they will not change their mobile numbers during the trial of the case, with further condition that they will not annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
05.10.2026 Gunjan-