Jharkhand High Court
B.A./9115/2026 of AMAR KUMAR SAH Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 29 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9115 of 2026 Amar Kumar Sah, aged about 24 years, Son of Jagarnath Sah @ Jagannath Sah, R/O Makhni, Durgatola, P.O.:- Makhni, P.S.:- Godda (M), District:- Godda, 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:29268
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 9115 of 2026
Amar Kumar Sah, aged about 24 years, Son of Jagarnath Sah @ Jagannath Sah, R/O Makhni, Durgatola, P.O.:- Makhni, P.S.:- Godda (M), District:- Godda, Jharkhand.
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Ms. Nidhi Singh, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, APP
---
05/29.09.2026
Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 01.05.2026 in connection with S.T. No. 315 of 2026 arising out of Godda (muffasil) P.S. Case No. 62 of 2026, registered under sections 324(5)/ 303(2) /115(2)/ 76/ 109/ 352/ 351(2) / 326 / 287 r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, now pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge -II at Godda.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the First Information Report, it is alleged that three persons had come to the shop of the informant and had asked him to vacate the shop. They assaulted the informant and his family members and also caused fire by sprinkling petrol.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter submits that though three persons have been made named accused in the First Information Report, but charge sheet has been submitted only against the petitioner and charge sheet has not been submitted against the two ladies, namely Gulabi Devi and Priyanka Kumari. The charge has been framed on 25.06.2026.
5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner and accordingly, the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail.
6. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the direct allegation against the petitioner of having tried
2026:JHHC:29268
2
to force the informant of the case to vacate the shop and his house and ultimately set the same on fire, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected.
7. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:29.09.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:01.10.2026