Jharkhand High Court
A.B.A./4888/2026 of SARITA DEVI Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 17 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 4888 of 2026 -------- Sarita Devi, W/o Amrit Kumar Mahto, aged about 35 years, R/o village- Bongaibera, P.O.-Bongaibera, P.S.-Angara, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party ----- CORAM:
2026:JHHC:28116
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 4888 of 2026
--------
Sarita Devi, W/o Amrit Kumar Mahto, aged about 35 years, R/o village- Bongaibera, P.O.-Bongaibera, P.S.-Angara, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
… … Opp. Party
-----
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
--------
For the Petitioner
: Mr. Nand Kishore Ram, Advocate
For the Opp. Party
: Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, A.P.P.
--------
Order No. 05/ Dated: 17th September, 2026
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.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Apprehending her arrest in connection with Tatisilway P.S. Case No. 15 of 2023 instituted under Sections 302, 201, 34 of the I.P.C., the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was rejected by this Court at the initial stage of the investigation vide order dated 25.04.2024 passed in A.B.A. No. 5833 of 2023. It is simply submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner resides separately from other main co-accused person and no role has been attributed against her.
4. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submitted that there is no fresh ground to entertain this anticipatory bail application.
5. It appears that earlier anticipatory bail petition of this petitioner was rejected vide order passed in A.B.A. No.5833 of 2023 dated 2026:JHHC:28116
2
25.04.2024 on merits, I do not find any fresh and new ground has been agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is also not taking any interest in co-operation with the investigation of the case although, charge-sheet has been submitted against rest of the accused person and trial has commenced. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this second anticipatory bail application, which stands dismissed.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) 17.09.2026 Arpit Uploaded on 17/09/2026