Jharkhand High Court
B.A./8075/2026 of XXXXX Vs STATE OF JHARKHAND on 23 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8075 of 2026 XXXXX … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate For the Opp.
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:28606
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 8075 of 2026
XXXXX
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, APP
---
06/23.09.2026
Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 29.01.2026 in connection with S.T Case No. 251 of 2026 arising out of Baliapur P.S. Case No. 94 of 2022 registered under sections 302, 354 and 34 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.), now pending in the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-VII, Dhanbad.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is alleged that the husband of the deceased connived with the petitioner to murder the deceased on the ground that the wife (deceased) was having illicit relationship with the present petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the family members of the husband of the deceased including the husband, have been convicted and their criminal appeal is pending before the Hon’ble Division Bench. They faced trial for offence under Sections 302/120B of Indian Penal Code. He also submits that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence.
5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the petitioner has confessed his guilt before the police and the co-accused (husband) has stated that his wife was having illicit relationship with the present petitioner. It is not in dispute that there is no eyewitness to the alleged occurrence.
6. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the fact that there is no eyewitness to the alleged occurrence coupled with the fact that the name of the petitioner apparently cropped up on the basis of confessional statement, the
2026:JHHC:28606
2
petitioner is directed to be enlarged 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 the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-VII, Dhanbad in connection with S.T Case No. 251 of 2026 arising out of Baliapur P.S. Case No. 94 of 2022, on the following conditions:
(i) One of the bailors would be the present pairvikar of the petitioner.
(ii) The other bailor should be his close relative.
(iii) The petitioner will attend the court on each and every date and on account of even single default, the learned court shall cancel the bail bond furnished by the petitioner.
(iv) The petitioner will deposit a self-attested copy of his Aadhar Card along with his mobile number before the learned court which he will not change during the pendency of the case without prior permission of the court.
(v) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the proceedings before the learned trial court.
7. The instant application is allowed with the aforesaid conditions.
8. Let this order along with a copy of the affidavit filed with the bail petition be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e- mail.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:23.09.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:28.09.2026