B.A./6984/2026 of NAVEEN BIRULY Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 2 September 2026

1. It appears from the Letter No.508 / 2026 sent by Sri Santosh Anand Prasad, learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, West Sighbhum, Chaibasa, that 11 witnesses have been examined so far and 12 witnesses have yet to be examined and it will take around three (03) months’ time to conclude the trial.

2. The present Bail Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for grant of regular bail, who is in custody in connection with Majhgaon P.S. Case No.26 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 103(1), 238, 3(5) 126(2), 127(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2) of BNS.

3. As per the F.I.R. the wife of the Informant namely Raimuni Biruly was murdered on 26.12.2024 by some unknown persons by sharp edge weapon.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R and has been implicated in this case merely on the basis of suspicions and previous enmity. It is submitted that the prayer of bail of the petitioner was rejected passed in B.A.

No. 10314 of 2025 vide order dated 16.02.2025 by this Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR but has been implicated in this case only on the basis of confessions statement of the co-accused persons. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is in custody since 06.08.2026 and hence the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

6. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer of bail of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR but during course of investigation, the confessional statement of the co-accused persons, the petitioner has been arrested in this case. It is submitted that earlier the prayer of bail of the petitioner has been rejected passed in B.A. No. 10314 of 2025 vide order dated 16.02.2026 by this Court. It is submitted that the murder weapon has been recovered from the house of the co- accused namely Gangaram Biruli and hence the prayer of bail of the petitioner may be rejected.

7. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and from perusal of the records of this case, it appears that earlier the prayer of bail of the petitioner has been rejected passed in B.A. No. 10314 of 2025 vide order dated 16.02.2026 by this Court with certain observation.

8. It further appears that although the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R but during course of investigation, the confessional statement of the co-accused person, the petitioner has been named in this case.

9. It appears from the order of the learned Trial Court that the petitioner Naveen Biruly and the other co-accused persons have confessed their guilt as they believed that the deceased was involved in witchcraft activities.

10. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to grant the bail to the petitioner. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected at this stage.

Accordingly, the Bail Application No.6984 of 2026 is dismissed.

11. However, the learned Trial Court is directed to conclude the Trial expeditiously as early as possible.

12. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court.

(Sanjay Prasad, J.) Dated :- 02.09.2026 Nishant/-