Jharkhand High Court
A.B.A./5444/2026 of MD. TOFIKE Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 29 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.5444 of 2026 ------ 1. Md. Tofike aged about 22 years S/O Md. Safik 2. Mustafa @ Mustefir @ Md. Mutafi, aged about 24 years, S/o Md. Safik Both are R/o Village Mal Bhandaridih, P.O. + P.S. Mahagama, District Godda .... .... …. Petitioners Versus
[2026:JHHC:29321]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.5444 of 2026
------
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.
1. Md. Tofike aged about 22 years S/O Md. Safik
2. Mustafa @ Mustefir @ Md. Mutafi, aged about 24 years, S/o Md. Safik Both are R/o Village Mal Bhandaridih, P.O. + P.S. Mahagama, District Godda .... .... …. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
.... .... .... Opposite Party
------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the State
: Mr. Someshwar Roy, Addl.P.P.
------ Order No:-02 Dated:-29-09-2026
Heard the parties.
Apprehending their arrest in connection with Mahagama P.S. Case No.163 of 2025 registered under Sections 103(2), 61(2) of the B.N.S. 2023, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners have made extra- judicial confession that they have committed the murder of Tausif by stabbing him with knife. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is then submitted that the petitioners are not named in the FIR and it is alleged in the FIR that the co-accused persons assaulted the deceased Tausif resulting in his death later on. It is also submitted that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-16 of the instant Anticipatory Bail Application. It is further submitted that the petitioners undertake to co-operate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel appearing for the State on the other hand opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that keeping in view the admissible evidence of extra-judicial confession made by the petitioners, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.
Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioners and the requirement of their custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, this Court is not inclined to give the privileges of anticipatory bail to the above-named petitioners.
Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the above- named petitioners is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated:-29.09.2026 Saroj/