Jharkhand High Court
B.A./9163/2026 of NITESH KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 30 September 2026
) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9163 of 2026 ------ Nitesh Kumar, aged about 19 years, Son of Mukesh Ganjhu, Resident of Village –Sohawan, P.O. and P.S. –Lawalong, District –Chatra, 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:29494 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 9163 of 2026
------ Nitesh Kumar, aged about 19 years, Son of Mukesh Ganjhu, Resident of Village –Sohawan, P.O. and P.S. –Lawalong, District –Chatra, Jharkhand.
… Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhay Kr. Chaturvedy, Advocate
: Mr. Rajesh Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State
: Mrs. Amrita Kumari, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 30.09.2026
Heard the parties.
The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Lawalong P.S case no. 29 of 2026 instituted under Section 140, 3(5) of BNS, 2023.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in furtherance of the common intention with the co-accused person, abducted Guddu Munda and committed his murder. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false and the petitioner is not named in the FIR and he has been implicated in this case only on the basis of confessional statement of Mahesh Ganju and Rakesh Munda. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent, as has been mentioned in paragraph 15 of the bail application. It is next submitted that no witness has been examined though charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in jail custody since 23.05.2026, as has been mentioned in para 16 of this bail application. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the trial of the case and further undertakes not to annoy or disturb the informant or the other witness of the case in any manner during trial of the case. It is lastly submitted that the co-accused person with similar allegation has already been admitted to bail by this Court vide order dated 23.09.2026 in B.A. No.8870 of 2026. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.
Learned Addl. P.P. opposed the prayer for bail.
Considering submissions of learned counsels and the facts as stated above, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Hence, the court below is directed to release the petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra in connection with Lawalong P.S case no. 29 of 2026 with the condition that the petitioner will not annoy or disturb the informant or the other witness of the case in any manner during trial of the case and will co-operate with the trial of the case and will furnish mobile phone number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card in the court below with an undertaking that he will not change the mobile phone number during the trial of the case.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
30.09.2026
Sonu/