Jharkhand High Court
B.A./9045/2026 of ARBAZ ANSARI Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 28 September 2026
) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.9045 of 2026 ------ Arbaz Ansari, aged about 23 years, S/o Aslam Ansari, R/o Village- Nayasarai, P.O.-Murma, P.S.-Vidhansabha, District-Ranchi (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:29121 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No.9045 of 2026
------ Arbaz Ansari, aged about 23 years, S/o Aslam Ansari, R/o Village- Nayasarai, P.O.-Murma, P.S.-Vidhansabha, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand).
.... .... …. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
.... .... .... Opposite Party
------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ayub Ansari, Advocate
For the State
: Mr. Satish Prasad, Addl.P.P
------
Order No.02 Dated- 28-09-2026
Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Rajrappa P.S. Case No.48 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under sections 310(2), 111(2)(b), 111(4) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 25(1-B)(a), 25(1-AAA), 35, 27(1) of the Arms Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed dacoity and looted gold and silver jewellery and cash of Rs.1 lakh. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in this case only because of looted articles in huge quantity was recovered from his possession. It is also submitted that though, the petitioner is not named in the FIR, without putting him on TIP as mentioned in para-13, charge sheet has been submitted in this case, but no witness has been examined as yet. It is next submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in paragraph no.14 of the bail application. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 24.04.2026, as has been mentioned in paragraph no.22 of the bail application. It is further submitted that the co-accused has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 29.07.2026 in B.A. No.7058 of 2026. It is next submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the trial of the case and further undertakes that he will not annoy or disturb 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 abovenamed 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 SDJM, Ramgarh, in connection with Rajrappa P.S. Case No.48 of 2026 with the condition that the petitioner will cooperate with the trial of the case and will furnish his mobile number and a copy of his Aadhar Card in the court below with the 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 witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 28/09/2026 Abhiraj/