B.A./8832/2026 of BALMUKHI ROUT Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 1 October 2026

1. Balmukhi Rout, aged about 45 years, S/o Kedar Rout, Permanent Resident of Village Simra Tikar, P.O. & P.S. Barahat, District Banka (Bihar), Present Address – Haripur Gairbanna, P.O. + P.S. Godda (Muffasil), District Godda

2. Punam Devi, aged about 35 years, S/o Sugdeo Raut, both are residents of village Haripur Gairbanna, P.O. + P.S. Godda (Muffasil), District Godda

… … Petitioners

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

… … Opp. Party

--- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---

For the Petitioners

: M/s Neerad Jaiswal, Advocate

For the Opp. Party

: Ms. Mohua Palit, Advocate

---

04/1st October 2026

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in custody in connection with Godda (M) P.S. Case No. 35 of 2026 (S.T. No. 170 of 2026) for the alleged offences registered under Sections 126(2)/115(2)/117(2)/109/74/303(2)/351(2)/352/3(5) of B.N.S. 2023, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Godda.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the bail application of the petitioners was rejected earlier in B.A. No. 5686/2026 vide order dated 24.06.2026. The petitioners are in custody since 16.03.2026 and charge has been framed on 08.05.2026, but till date no witness has been examined as is reflecting from the impugned order dated 16.07.2026. There are altogether nine witnesses to be examined.

3. Learned counsel for the opposite party has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the petitioners are the neighbour of the victim, who suffered grievous injuries and therefore the petitioners may not be enlarged on bail at this stage as the material witnesses are yet to be examined before the learned court.

4. To this, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that so far as petitioner no. 2 is concerned, she is a lady and therefore considering the custody of petitioner no. 2, she may be enlarged on bail.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the petitioner no. 2 is a lady having no criminal antecedent, petitioner no. 2, namely, Punam Devi is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty-Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Godda in connection with Godda (M) P.S. Case No. 35 of 2026, subject to the following conditions: -

(i) One of the bailors would be the present pairvikar of the petitioner no. 2.

(ii) The other bailor should be her close relative.

(iii) The petitioner no. 2 will attend the court on each and every date and on account of her single default, the learned court shall cancel the bail bond furnished by the petitioner.

(iv) The petitioner no. 2 would deposit a self-attested copy of her Aadhar Card along with her is Mobile Number before the learned court below, which she shall not change during the pendency of the case without prior permission of the court.

(v) The petitioner no. 2 shall fully co-operate with the proceedings before the learned court below.

6. So far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned, there is direct and specific allegation against him and he has been threatening the victim from time to time.

7. Considering the direct and specific allegation made against the petitioner no. 1 and the fact that the material witnesses are yet to be examined before the learned court, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner no. 1 on bail. Hence, prayer for bail of petitioner no. 1 is hereby rejected.

8. The instant bail application is partly allowed with the aforesaid conditions.

9. Let a copy of this order along with a copy of the affidavit filed with the bail petition be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e- mail/FAX’.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

Dated: 01.10.2026

Uploaded On: 01.10.2026

Mukul/-