Jharkhand High Court
B.A./9189/2026 of FUCHU MAHLI Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 1 October 2026
) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9189 of 2026 ------ Fuchu Mahli, aged about 46 years, S/o Late Sithu Mahli, R/o –Village –Ichapiri, P.O. & P.S. –Pithoria, District –Ranchi, Jharkhand. … 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:29593 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 9189 of 2026
------ Fuchu Mahli, aged about 46 years, S/o Late Sithu Mahli, R/o –Village –Ichapiri, P.O. & P.S. –Pithoria, District –Ranchi, Jharkhand.
… Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Karan Kaushik, Advocate For the State
: Mr. Jitendra Pandey, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 01.10.2026
Heard the parties.
The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with S.T. Case No. 87 of 2025 arising out of Pithoria P.S. Case No. 73 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
This is the second journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail. Earlier the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 22.11.2024 in B.A. No. 9628 of 2024. It is next submitted that the fresh ground is that the P.W.1 who claims to be the eye-witness of the occurrence has supported the case of the occurrence. It is then submitted that the claim of the P.W.1 that she is the eye-witness of the occurrence is contradictory to the case set up by the prosecution in the F.I.R. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.
The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that keeping in view the direct allegation against the petitioner of committing murder of Bhugal Oraon and also causing hurt to others and in view of the evidence that has already come on record through the 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 admitted to bail.
Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of committing the murder of Bhugal Oraon and the chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence if released on bail, this Court is not inclined to admit the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
01.10.2026
Sonu/