Jharkhand High Court
B.A./9204/2026 of DIPAK PASWAN Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 1 October 2026
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.9204 of 2026 ------ Dipak Paswan, aged about 23 years, son of Budho Paswan, resident of Nira Para, Madanshahi, P.O. & P.S.- Jirwabari, District- Sahibganj .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------
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:29512] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No.9204 of 2026
------ Dipak Paswan, aged about 23 years, son of Budho Paswan, resident of Nira Para, Madanshahi, P.O. & P.S.- Jirwabari, District- Sahibganj
.... .... …. Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand
.... .... .... Opposite Party
------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate
For the State
: Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, Addl.P.P
------
Order No.02 Dated-01-10-2026
Heard the parties.
The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Jirwabari P.S. Case No.82 of 2026 corresponding to G.R. Case No.456 of 2026 registered under Section 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 109(1), 303(2), 351(3) & 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner, in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons, attempted to murder the informant by giving him knife blows. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. Drawing attention of this Court towards para-17 of the instant bail application, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. It is next submitted that though the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. at serial No.1 of the assailants but in the re-statement of the informant appearing in para-47 of the case-diary, missed out the name of the petitioner though it has been mentioned that he has supported the case as has been mentioned in the F.I.R. It is also submitted that though charge-sheet has already been submitted in this case but no witness has been examined as yet. It is further submitted that the co-accused, with similar allegations, has already been admitted to bail by this Court vide order dated 09.09.2026 passed in B.A. No.8403 of 2026. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 19.06.2026. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail.
Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that keeping in view the direct allegation of serious nature against the petitioner, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner ought not be released on bail.
Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner as well as his chance of absconding and tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioner be released on bail.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated-01.10.2026-Animesh/