Jharkhand High Court
B.A./8098/2026 of BISHNU MAHATO Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 29 September 2026
) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8098 of 2026 ------ Bishnu Mahato, aged about 45 years, son of Late Mahendra Mahato, resident of Village –Dugda, P.O. Chas, P.S. Chas (M), District –Bokaro, 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:29315 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 8098 of 2026
------ Bishnu Mahato, aged about 45 years, son of Late Mahendra Mahato, resident of Village –Dugda, P.O. Chas, P.S. Chas (M), District –Bokaro, Jharkhand.
… Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Ms. Prerna Jhunjhunwala, Advocate For the State
: Mrs. Amrita Kumari, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.03 Dated- 29.09.2026
Heard the parties.
The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Chas (M) P.S. Case No.01 of 2026 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 323 of 2026, S.T. Case No. 125 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under sections 126(2), 333, 118(1), 118(2) and 109 of the B.N.S., 2023.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner caused grievous hurt to the victim by dangerous weapon and attempted to murder them. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and in the meanwhile eight witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and all of them have supported the case of the prosecution but there is contradiction regarding the weapon of offence as the P.W.1 says that the petitioner was armed with a weapon while the P.W.2 has stated that the petitioner assaulted with a bamboo stick. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.
The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that keeping in view the direct allegation of serious nature against the petitioner as well as the overwhelming evidence that has come through the witnesses so far examined in this case, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be admitted to bail.
Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the overwhelming evidence that has already come on record as also the chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence if released on bail, this Court is not inclined to admit the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
29.09.2026
Sonu/