Jharkhand High Court
B.A./8180/2026 of SHAMI KHAN @ SHAMI JAMA Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 24 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8180 of 2026 Shami Khan @ Shami Jama, aged about 24 years, son of Abdul Ali Khan, resident of village – Chiniya Tola – Chikwta Pathar, P.O. + P.S. – Chiniya, District – Garhwa (Jharkhand) … … Petitioner Versus The
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:28767
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 8180 of 2026
Shami Khan @ Shami Jama, aged about 24 years, son of Abdul Ali Khan, resident of village – Chiniya Tola – Chikwta Pathar, P.O. + P.S. – Chiniya, District – Garhwa (Jharkhand)
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sahay Gaurav Piyush, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, APP
---
05/24.09.2026
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with S.T. Case No.175/2026 (arising out of Chiniya P.S. Case No.03 of 2026), registered under Section 126 (2), 115 (2), 117 (2), 109 of B.N.S., now pending in the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge – IV, Garhwa, Jharkhand.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no eye witness to the alleged occurrence. It has come that there was illicit relationship between the petitioner and the victim, and therefore, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner is in custody since 26.02.2026 having no criminal antecedent and charge has already been framed.
4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R. and the victim, who suffered grievous injury, has specifically made allegation against the petitioner.
2026:JHHC:28767
5. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the fact that there is direct allegation against the petitioner by none less than the victim herself, who suffered grievous injury, in such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
6. Accordingly, 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:24.09.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:29.09.2026