2025:JHHC:38732 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 858 of 2025 Dipu Kumar @ Deepu Kumar, S/o Mahesh Ray, Aged about 21 Years, R/o Namkum Khatal, PO & PS- Namkum, Dist-Ranchi, Jharkhand …… Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ……. Respondent --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ---------- For the Appellant : Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, APP For the Informant : Ms. Neha Pandey, Advocate ----------- 04/Dated:18th December, 2025 This Criminal appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant for grant of bail who is in custody in connection with S.C/S.T Case No.56 of 2025, arising out of Namkum P.S. Case No.110 of 2025, instituted under Sections 191(2)/191(3)/190/126(2)/115(2)/118(1)/109/352/351(2)(3) of BNS & 27 of the Arms Act by which the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected vide order dated 16.07.2025 by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ranchi. 2. As per FIR, it is alleged by the informant/Victim that on 14.03.2025 at around 5.00 p.m some persons from Namkum Khatal came to the house of the informant and started abusing and threating. It is alleged that on 15.03.2025 at around 10.00 a.m. Sonu Rai, Pritam Yadav, Vishal Yadav alias Baltu, Sujit Rai, Raj Kumar Yadav, Rohit Yadav, Munna Rai, Lucky Singh Yadav, Prem Prakash Sinha, Chitij Singh, Deepu Kumar 19 years (i.e.the appellant), Karan Kumar, Deepak Singh, all residents of Namkum Khatal, P.S Namkum along with 150 unknown persons suddenly came to the house of the informant with Lathi, 2025:JHHC:38732 2 Talvar, Pathar and with the intention to kill attacked her husband and family members. It is then alleged that one Raj Kumar Yadav fired shots from his illegal weapon because of which husband of the informant Mr. Sonu Munda S/o Sukhial Munda, Samir Dang, Pintu Munda, Sanjay Munda, Sintu Munda, Vijay Sanga, Mahesh Kacchap, Ravi Munda, Vikas Munda, Sohrai Sanga and others were injured and admitted in Sadar, ESIC and RIMS. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant is innocent and has committed no offence. It is submitted that the appellant is a student and he has no concern with the aforesaid incident nor he was physically present at the time of incident. It is submitted that the appellant name has been roped in the FIR by the informant only because he is a resident of Namkum Khatal. It is submitted that the appellant was not a member of unlawful assembly. It is submitted that the appellant happens to be a student of B.Com and is studying in Marwari College, Ranchi which is evident from his Identity Card dated 13.12.2022 enclosed as Annexure-2. It is submitted that the appellant is a student of Semester V U.G Program and his end semester examination is scheduled from 19.08.2025 onwards which is evident from the notice of the examination department dated 01.08.2025 enclosed as Annexure-3. It is submitted that the appellant is in custody since 19.03.2025 and hence he may be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that the appellant is named in the FIR. It is submitted that the appellant along with 12 co-accused persons and around 150 unknown persons had arrived at the village of the informant and they had assaulted her husband and family members and due to which 10 persons had sustained grievous 2025:JHHC:38732 3 injuries and one of the persons namely, Sintu Munda (i.e. the husband of the informant) has died. It is submitted that the informant during her subsequent statement at paragraph-2 and the witnesses namely Ajay Munda, Gyan Munda and Smt. Rina Sanga, whose statements are recorded at paragraph-6, 7 and 12, have fully supported the case of the informant and the role of the appellant Dipu Kumar. It is submitted that the police has submitted charge sheet against the appellant and hence the prayer for bail of the appellant may be rejected. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant after adopting the submission of learned APP has submitted that the appellant is named in the FIR and he and other co-accused were demanding Chanda (ransom) from the husband of the informant on 14.03.2025 and had threatened him and his family members and thereafter the appellant-Dipu Kumar and other accused persons as named in the FIR arrived at the village in their residence and started assaulting him and one of the accused Raj Kumar had fired due to which one Sintu Munda had died at Hospital and hence the prayer for bail of the appellant may be rejected. 6. Perused the F.IR and the case diary and considered the submissions of both the sides. 7. It appears that the appellant is named in the FIR for having also arrived in a mob at the residence of the informant on 15.03.2025 and alleged to have assaulted and the informant and her husband and due to firing made by one Raj Kumar Yadav upon the common people of the village, 10 persons are said to have sustained grievous injury and one person Sintu Munda had died. 2025:JHHC:38732 4 8. It appears that the witnesses namely Ajay Munda, Gyan Munda and Smt. Rina Sanga at paragraph-6, 7 and 12 have supported the allegation of the informant. 9. It appears that the appellant-Dipu Kumar @ Deepu Kumar is a student. 10. However, considering the fact and the circumstances of this case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the appellant- Dipu Kumar @ Deepu Kumar on bail at this stage. 11. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the appellant-Dipu Kumar @ Deepu Kumar, is rejected at this stage. 12. Thus, this Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.858 of 2025, is hereby, dismissed. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Dated: 18.12.2025 Saket/-