B.A./3429/2025 of RAJESH KUMAR MAHTO ALIAS VINOD MAHTO ALIAS RAJESH SINGH Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 30 September 2026

[2026:JHHC:29620] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

B.A. No.3429 of 2025

------ Rajesh Kumar Mahto @ Vinod Mahto @ Rajesh Singh, aged about 24 years, son of Late Jagdish Mahto, resident of Tupkadih Kumardih, Harijan Colony, P.O. & P.S.- Jaridih, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand. .... .... …. Petitioner

Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party

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

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate For the State

: Mr. Gautam Rakesh, Addl.P.P.

------ Order No:-05 Dated:-30-09-2026

Heard the parties. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor files supplementary affidavit. Keep the same in the record. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Kanke P.S. Case No. 220 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 61(2) & 112(2) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 25(1-B)a, 25(6) & 26 and 27 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons has committed murder of Anupam Kumar. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier the regular bail petition of the petitioner was rejected by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-IX, Ranchi in B.P. No. 127 of 2025, the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner has mentioned in the said to rejection order of the bail application, that the deceased saw the petitioner were stealing diesel from vehicles and as per the confessional statement of the petitioner and the co-accused persons; the petitioner and the co-accused persons shot him on chest from a short distance which resulted in his death. This Court vide order dated 01.05.2025, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and he has been implicated in this case only on the basis of his own confessional statement as well as the confessional statement of the co-accused persons and accept confessional statement of the accused persons of the case there is no other material to implicate the petitioner in this case and basing upon such materials charge- sheet has already been submitted in the case as well as considering the period of custody of the petitioner from 30.11.2024, admitted the petitioner to bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- with the conditions. The said order was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. This Court granted regular bail to the petitioner in exercise of its power under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S, 2023. It is needless to mention that under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S., 2023, the High Court and the Court of Sessions exercise to concurrent powers and the power under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S, 2023 exercised by the High Court is not an appellate or revisional power. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Cr. Appeal No. 3691 of 2026 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5631 of 2026 and the connected criminal appeals by common order dated 06.08.2026, has observed that the High Court by the said order dated 01.05.2025 has granted relief of bail by setting aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge who declined to grant bail in the aforesaid case. This Court do not find any observation in the said order dated 01.05.2025 made by this Court that this Court has ever set aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge who declined to grant bail in the aforesaid case, but on its own appreciation of the facts of the case and the law involved has thought it fit to use its discretion in granting bail to the petitioner. Be that as it may, but the fact remains that vide the order dated 06.08.2026, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has set aside the order dated 01.05.2025 passed by this Court in B.A. No. 3429 of 2025 and directed the respondents who are the petitioners herein to surrender before the Trial Court on or before 20.08.2026. It has been reported by the Additional Judicial Commissioner XII-cum-Special Judge C.A.W.-cum-Electricity Act Cases, Ranchi that the petitioners surrendered before the said Court on 20.08.2026. It transpires that in the meanwhile two witnesses have been examined during the trial of the case. P.W. 1 was examined on 12.01.2026 and P.W.2 was examined on 16.06.2026. Since the trial of the case is pending, this Court is of the considered view that it will not be proper for this Court to delve into the merits of the case, nor to discuss the materials are available in the record in detail and the pros and the cons of the material available in the record as well as laws involved in this case to avoid the trial court being prejudiced by this order. But keeping in view the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of having committed murder of Anupam Kumar and the principles of judicial decorum; in view of the said order dated 06.08.2026 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, this Court feels it not proper to admit the petitioner on bail again. Accordingly, the prayer for bail for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

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