Jharkhand High Court
B.A./8701/2026 of RAHUL KUMAR PASWAN ALIAS RAHUL PASWAN Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 18 September 2026
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.8701 of 2026 ----- Rahul Kumar Paswan @ Rahul Paswan, son of Bhola Paswan, resident of Loko Bazar, Pathardih, PO Pathardih, PS Sudamdih, District Dhanbad … Petitioner(s). Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party(s).
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:28319
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No.8701 of 2026
----- Rahul Kumar Paswan @ Rahul Paswan, son of Bhola Paswan, resident of Loko Bazar, Pathardih, PO Pathardih, PS Sudamdih, District Dhanbad
… Petitioner(s).
Versus The State of Jharkhand
… Opposite Party(s).
CORAM
: SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. R. K. Singh, Advocate For the State
: Mr. Satish Kr. Keshri, APP …......
02 /18.09.2026: This bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Sections 483 & 484 of BNSS, 2023 wherein, prayer has been made for grant of bail as he is in custody for allegedly committing offence punishable under Sections 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and have also gone through the impugned order.
3. Learned APP opposes the prayer for bail.
4. Perused the letter of the Trial Court for extension of time. Only two witnesses are remained to be examined in this case. The prayer of bail of the petitioner was earlier twice rejected on 30.07.2025 in B.A. No. 1623 of 2025 and on 17.03.2026 in B.A. No. 2100 of 2026. While rejecting the bail in BA No. 2100 of 2026 an observation was made to conclude the trial within a period of five months. However, since two witnesses are remained to be examined in this case, I direct the prosecution to produce those two witnesses on two successive dates within a month, thereafter it is expected that the trial will be concluded.
5. Considering the aforesaid fact, I am not inclined to grant privilege of bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for
2026:JHHC:28319
bail of the petitioner in connection with Sudamdih P.S. Case No. 25 of 2024 corresponding to S.T. No. 467 of 2024, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Dhanbad stands rejected.
6. Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed.
(ANANDA SEN, J.) 18.09.2026 Tanuj/CP-3
Uploaded on 23.09.2026