Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 1173 (JHR)

DIPAK KUMAR ALIAS DIPAK KUMAR MAHTO v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./559/2026 · 2026-03-25

Deepak Roshan

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:8511 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A No. 559 of 2026 Dipak Kumar @ Dipak Kumar Mahto, aged about 24 years, son of Nehru Mahto, resident of Village-Toyara, PO Topa, PS Mandu, District- Ramgarh ... … Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Praveen Shankar Dayal, Advocate For the Informant : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, Advocate -------- Order No. 03 /Dated: 25th March 2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant bail application has been preferred by the petitioner for grant of regular bail for the offences registered under Sections 103(1), 238(a) and 3(5) of the BNS in connection with Mandu (Kuju) PS Case No. 206 of 2025 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh. In this case, charge-sheet has been submitted under Sections 103(1), 140(2), 238(a), 3/5 of the BNS. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence. It is submitted that there appears to be no reason as to why the deceased Yogendra Mahto could accompany petitioner for eating mutton when there was a case pending against the deceased for murder of the sister of petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is no eye- witness to the alleged occurrence and the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 05.09.2025 as such the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned APP and learned counsel for the informant oppose the prayer for bail of the petitioner. 2026:JHHC:8511 2 5. Having regard to the gravity of the offence and the allegation made against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected, at this stage. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after four months. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 25th March 2026 Amit Uploaded on 30/03/2026