Jharkhand High Court
B.A./9237/2026 of ASHOK LAYEK @ ASHOK NAYAK Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 1 October 2026
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.9237 of 2026 ------ Ashok Layek @ Ashok Nayak, aged about 40 years, Son of Laxman @ Lakhan Layek, Resident of Bartand, Barda, Post Office Chandil, Police Station Chandil, District Seraikella-Kharsawan .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of
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:29559] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No.9237 of 2026
------ Ashok Layek @ Ashok Nayak, aged about 40 years, Son of Laxman @ Lakhan Layek, Resident of Bartand, Barda, Post Office Chandil, Police Station Chandil, District Seraikella-Kharsawan .... .... …. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
.... .... .... Opposite Party
------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate For the State
: Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, Addl.P.P.
------ Order No:-02 Dated:-01-10-2026
Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with S.T. Case No.118 of 2026 arising out of Seraikella P.S. Case No. 75 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner committed murder of Sahdev Mahato by firing upon him. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is then submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR but he has been implicated in this case only on the basis of self-confessional statement as well as the confessional statement of the co-accused persons and except that, there is no material in the record to implicate the petitioner in this case. It is also submitted that though charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner but no witness has been examined as yet. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 25.04.2026 as mentioned in para-14 of the instant bail application. It is also submitted that the co-accused, with similar allegations, has already been admitted to bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.12.2023 passed in B.A. No.9895 of 2023. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the trial of the case and also undertakes not to 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 released on bail.
Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
Considering the facts of this case, the above-named petitioner is directed to be enlarged 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 the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella in connection with S.T. Case No.118 of 2026 arising out of Seraikella P.S. Case No. 75 of 2023 with the condition that he will co- operate with the trial of the case and furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card in the court below with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the trial of the case and he will not annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated:-01.10.2026 Saroj/