B.A./8410/2026 of SADDAM ANSARI @ MD. SADDAM Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 30 September 2026

[2026:JHHC:29482] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

B.A. No.8410 of 2026

------ Saddam Ansari @ Md. Saddam aged about 20 years, Son of Muslim Ansari @ Md. Muslim, resident of Village Shahpur, P.O.- Shahpur, Police Station- Chainpur, District- Palamau. .... .... …. Petitioner

Versus The State of Jharkhand

.... .... .... Opposite Party

------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Chaudhary, Advocate

Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the State

: Mr. Jitendra Pandey, Addl.P.P.

------ Order No:-03 Dated:-30-09-2026

Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Chainpur P.S. Case No. 204 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. No. 266 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 127(2), 140(1), 303 (2), 103(1), 351, 3(5), 61 (2) of the B.N.S., 2023. 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 on merit by this Court vide order dated 03.07.2026 passed in B.A. No. 6159 of 2026. 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 person committed murder of Hasain Ali. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is then submitted that the fresh ground is that in the meanwhile two witnesses have been examined including the Vinay Agrawal who is the eye-witness to the occurrence, who has not supported the case of prosecution and has been declared hostile by the prosecution and even though the prosecution has put leading questions to him, but still he did not support the case of the prosecution and P.W.1 is a hearsay witness of the version of P.W.2. It is next submitted that since the P.W.2 himself has not supported the case of the prosecution which raised doubt about the hearsay testimony of P.W.1 about the occurrence. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 25.10.2025 as mentioned in para-15 of the instant bail application. It is next submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-14 of the instant bail application. It is also submitted that the co-accused, with similar allegations, has already been admitted to bail by this Court vide order dated 30.04.2026 passed in B.A. No.3625 of 2026. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the trial of the case and also undertakes not to annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

Considering the facts of this case, the above-named petitioner is directed to be enlarged 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 the learned Additional Sessions Judge VI, Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Chainpur P.S. Case No. 204 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. No. 266 of 2026 with the condition that he will co-operate with the trial of the case and furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card in the court below with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the trial of the case and he will not annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated:- 30.09.2026 Amar/