Jharkhand High Court
B.A./9039/2026 of MITHUN HADI Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 29 September 2026
) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9039 of 2026 ------ Mithun Hadi, aged about 30 years, son of Ajay Kumar Hadi, resident of village –Garhatand, P.O. –Garhatand, P.S. –Giridih (M), District –Giridih. … Petitioner Versus The State of
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:29305 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 9039 of 2026
------ Mithun Hadi, aged about 30 years, son of Ajay Kumar Hadi, resident of village –Garhatand, P.O. –Garhatand, P.S. –Giridih (M), District –Giridih.
… Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pran Pranay, Advocate For the State
: Mr. Satish Prasad, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 29.09.2026
Heard the parties.
The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Giridih (M) P.S. Case No.376 of 2024, S.T. No. 300 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109, 118 added with Section 103(1) 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 Earlier the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 05.05.2026 in B.A. No. 3744 of 2026. It is next submitted that in the meanwhile the informant has been examined but he has failed to identify the petitioner who was present through video conferencing. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is then submitted that the co-accused person with similar allegation has already been admitted to bail by this Court vide order dated 27.02.2026 in B.A. No. 1812 of 2026. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 22.12.2024, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 19 of the bail application. It is then submitted that so far only one witness has been examined. It is further submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the trial of the case and further undertakes that he will not annoy or disturb the informant or the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.
The learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for bail.
Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am inclined to enlarge the above-named petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released 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 Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih, in connection with Giridih (M) P.S. Case No.376 of 2024, S.T. No. 300 of 2025 with the condition that the petitioner will co-operate with the trial of the case and will furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the trial of the case, with further condition that he will not annoy or disturb the informant or the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
29.09.2026
Sonu/