Jharkhand High Court
B.A./8144/2026 of SURESH BHUIYAN Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 30 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.8144 of 2026 ------ Suresh Bhuiyan, aged about 53 years, Son of Late Pyari Bhuiyan, Resident of Village- Joda, P.O. & P.S.- Patan, Dist.- Palamau, Jharkhand. .... .... …. 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:29511] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No.8144 of 2026
------ Suresh Bhuiyan, aged about 53 years, Son of Late Pyari Bhuiyan, Resident of Village- Joda, P.O. & P.S.- Patan, Dist.- Palamau, Jharkhand.
.... .... …. Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand
.... .... .... Opposite Party
------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, Advocate
Mr. Ashish Gautam, Advocate. For the State
: Mrs. Ruby Pandey, Addl.P.P.
------ Order No:-02 Dated:-30-09-2026
Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with S.T. Case No. 324 of 2022 arising out of Patan P.S. Case No. 20 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302, 34, 120(B) and 109 of the Indian Penal Code. 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 27.03.2023 passed in B.A. No. 1692 of 2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fresh ground is that in the meanwhile three witnesses have been examined who have supported the case of the prosecution. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody for some more time. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail. Learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that keeping in view the direct allegation against the petitioner of being in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons committed cold blooded murder of three persons by abducting them; there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence, if released on bail. More so because three witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution have supported the case of the prosecution. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be released on bail. Considering the serious allegation against the petitioner of committing cold blooded murder of the three family members of the informant after abducting them and as so far three witnesses examined during the trial of the case so far, have supported the case of the prosecution as well as the chance of his absconding and tampering with the evidence, if released on bail, this Court is not inclined to admit the above-named petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected at this stage.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated:- 30.09.2026 Amar/