Jharkhand High Court
B.A./9102/2026 of PARAS MAHTO @ PARAS NATH MEHTA Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 29 September 2026
) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9102 of 2026 ------ Paras Mahto @ Paras Nath Mehta, aged about 38 years, son of Birendra Mahto @ Virendra Mahto @ Birendra Mehta, resident of Village –Teliyahi, Kokarsa, P.O. –Lami Patra, P.S. – Pandwa, District
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:29307 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 9102 of 2026
------ Paras Mahto @ Paras Nath Mehta, aged about 38 years, son of Birendra Mahto @ Virendra Mahto @ Birendra Mehta, resident of Village –Teliyahi, Kokarsa, P.O. –Lami Patra, P.S. – Pandwa, District –Palamau, Jharkhand.
… Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate For the State
: Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 29.09.2026
Heard the parties.
The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Pandwa P.S. Case No.13 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under Section 103(2) of the BNS, 2023.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed murder of Pawan Kumar by tying him with rope and beating him resulting in his death. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that there is no eye-witness of the occurrence and because of village politics, the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is then submitted that the recovery of the rope used in killing the deceased was from the house of the petitioner. It is next submitted that the petitioner undertakes that he will cooperate with the trial of the case. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 01.03.2026 as is evident from para-17 of the instant bail application. It is next submitted that though charge sheet has already been submitted in this case but no witness has been examined so far. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail.
The learned Spl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the allegation against the petitioner stands on the same footing as that of the co-accused – Yogendra Mahto @ Yogendra Kr. Mahto, whose regular bail has been rejected by this Court. It is next submitted that keeping in view the direct allegation of serious nature against the petitioner of having committed the murder of Pawan Kumar, 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 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 at this stage.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
29.09.2026
Sonu/