Jharkhand High Court
B.A./9217/2026 of DIN DAYAL DAS Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 1 October 2026
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.9217 of 2026 ------ Din Dayal Das, aged about 40 years, son of Khelu Das, resident of Village Kharni (Kathartand), P.O. and P.S. Topchanchi, District Dhanbad (Jharkhand) .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite
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:29513] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No.9217 of 2026
------ Din Dayal Das, aged about 40 years, son of Khelu Das, resident of Village Kharni (Kathartand), P.O. and P.S. Topchanchi, District Dhanbad (Jharkhand)
.... .... …. Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand
.... .... .... Opposite Party
------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shekhar Pd. Sinha, Advocate
For the State
: Mr. Ajay Kr. Pathak, Addl.P.P
------
Order No.02 Dated-01-10-2026
Heard the parties.
The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Topchanchi P.S. Case No.88 of 2024 corresponding to S.T. Case No.69 of 2025 registered under Section 302, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
This is the second journey of the petitioner with the self- same prayer for regular bail as earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected on merit by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.08.2025 passed in B.A. No.3594 of 2025.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fresh ground is that in the meanwhile, the petitioner has remained in custody for some more time. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 12.11.2024. 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 overwhelming evidence that has come from the witnesses examined during the trial, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail and since the prayer for bail of the petitioner has already been rejected on merit after examination of the witnesses so the mere fact that the petitioner has remained in custody for some more time is not a sufficient ground to reconsider the prayer for bail which has already been rejected on merit. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner ought not be released on bail.
Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, the evidence that has already come through the witnesses examined during the trial as well as the chance of his absconding and tampering with the evidence if released on bail, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above- named petitioner be released on bail merely because the petitioner has remained in custody for some more time.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated-01.10.2026-Animesh/