Jharkhand High Court
B.A./9218/2026 of VINAY TUDU Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 1 October 2026
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.9218 of 2026 ------ 1. Vinay Tudu, age about 38 Years, Son of Lakhindra Tudu. 2. Mangal Murmu, age about 32 Years, Son of Sibhlal Murmu. Both Resident of Village- Saluka, P.O.- Sitamuri, P.S.- Bindapathar, District- Jamtara .... .... …. Petitioners
[2026:JHHC:29515]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No.9218 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. Vinay Tudu, age about 38 Years, Son of Lakhindra Tudu.
2. Mangal Murmu, age about 32 Years, Son of Sibhlal Murmu.
Both Resident of Village- Saluka, P.O.- Sitamuri, P.S.- Bindapathar, District- Jamtara .... .... …. Petitioners
Versus The State of Jharkhand
.... .... Opposite Party
------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Kaushal Kishor Mishra, Advocate
For the State
: Mr. Naveen Kr. Gaunjhu, Addl.P.P
------
Order No.02 Dated-01-10-2026
Heard the parties.
The petitioners have been made accused in connection with Bindapathar P.S. Case No.66 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Section 103, 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners, in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons, committed the murder of Uttam Mandal. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. Drawing attention of this Court towards para-13 of the instant bail application, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent. It is next submitted that though the petitioners are not named in the F.I.R. yet they have been implicated in this case only on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused Ramkrishan Gorain, Subhash Gorain and Babu Ram Marandi and except the confessional statement of the co-accused, there is no other material in the record to implicate the petitioners in this case. It is next 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 30.03.2026 passed in B.A. No.2618 of 2026. It is then submitted that the petitioners undertake that they will co-operate with the trial of the case and that they will not annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case during the trial of the case. It is lastly submitted that the petitioners have been in custody since 02.08.2026 as has been mentioned in para-14 of the instant bail application. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be released on bail.
Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail.
Considering the facts of this case, the above-named petitioner are directed to be enlarged 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 S.D.J.M., Jamtara in connection with Bindapathar P.S. Case No.66 of 2025 with the condition that they will co-operate with the trial of the case, furnish their mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card in the court below with an undertaking that they will not change their mobile number during the trial of the case and will not annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case during the trial of the case.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated-01.10.2026-Animesh/