Jharkhand High Court
B.A./4156/2026 of MATHURA SINGH Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 11 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 4156 of 2026 ---- Mathura Singh, aged about 50 years, S/o Pato Singh, resident of Village Salatua, P.O. & P.S. Chainpur, District Palamau (Jharkhand) …. …. Petitioner(s)/Applicant(s) -Versus- The State of Jharkhand
2026:JHHC:27368
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 4156 of 2026
----
Mathura Singh, aged about 50 years, S/o Pato Singh, resident of Village Salatua, P.O. & P.S. Chainpur, District Palamau (Jharkhand)
….
….
Petitioner(s)/Applicant(s)
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand
….
….
Opposite Party
----
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
----
For the Petitioner(s)/Applicant(s)
: Md. Faruque Ansari, Adv.
For the State
: Mr. Satish Prasad, A.P.P.
----
08/Dated: 11th 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 the parties.
2. The applicant, who is in custody since 11.03.2024, has renewed his prayer for grant of regular bail in connection with S.T No.273 of 2024, arising out of Chainpur P.S. Case No.55 of 2024, registered for the offence under Section 302 & 201/34 of the B.N.S, 2023, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Palamau at Daltonganj.
3. Earlier, the prayer for bail of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 09.03.2026 passed in B.A. No.1064 of 2026.
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant(s) that complete set of FIR along with its enclosure have been annexed with this bail application and there is no suppression on his/her part.
5. Innocence has been claimed by the learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that on basis of the confession of this applicant, weapon of the alleged crime i.e., Tangi has been recovered, but no sharp cutting injury has been found. Further, similarly situated other co-accused persons have already been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide orders dated 14.02.2025, 09.07.2024, 10.07.2024 & 27.08.2024 passed in B.A. Nos.1242 of 2025, 5129 of 2024, 5174 of 2024 and 6710 of 2024 respectively. On the above basis, prayer for bail has been made.
2026:JHHC:27368
Page | 2
B.A. No.4156 of 2026
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that this is a different case as because it is a case of honour killing by the father as he had seen his daughter talking with someone else of not liking. The weapon of crime i.e., Tangi had also been recovered.
7. Considering the materials available on record, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of bail of the applicant is hereby, rejected.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Dated 11th September, 2026 Raja/Uploaded on 14.09.2026