2026:JHHC:5738 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.591 of 2026 ----- 1. Bokul Shekh @ Anwar Shekh, aged about 45 years, Son of late Gani Shekh. 2. Kallu Sekh, aged about 45 years, son of late Makbool Sekh. Both Resident of Village-Dorhi, Police Station: Margomunda, Post Office – Madhupur, District:Deoghar, Jharkhand 3. Saddam Sekh @ Saddm Hussain, aged about 27 years, Son of Karim Sekh. 4. Javed Sekh, aged about 20 years, son of late Rahim Sekh. Both Resident of Village-Dorhi, Police Station: Margomunda, Post Office – Madhupur, District:Deoghar, Jharkhand. 5. Safik Sekh, aged about 54 years, son of late Budhan Sekh. 6. Jafrul Sekh @ Jalauddin Sekh, aged about 49 years, son of Maniruddin Sekh. 7. Jola Sekh @ Abul Sekh @ Gola Sekh, aged about 55 years, son of Late Makbool Sekh. All three above resident of Village-Dorhi, Post Office – Madhupur, Police Station: Margomunda, District:Deoghar. 8. Jhakshu Sekh, aged about 61 years, son of late Turawali Sekh. 9. Sanaul Sekh, aged about 30 years, son of Jhakshu Sekh. Both above resident of Village-Dorhi, Post Office – Madhupur, Police Station: Margomunda, District:Deoghar. 10. Nanka Sekh @ Shamim Sekh, aged about 45 years, son of Safruddin Sekh. 11. Badruddin Sekh @ Bablu Sekh, aged about 37 years, son of Samsuddin Sekh. Both above resident of Village-Dorhi, Post Office – Madhupur, Police Station: Margomunda, District:Deoghar, Jharkhand. … … Petitioners Versus State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party ------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD ------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Satyanshu Shubham, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P. For the Informant : Rahul Ranjan, Advocate 2026:JHHC:5738 2 ------ Order No. 02/Dated 25th February, 2026 1. The instant application has been filed under Sections 483 and 484 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking therein direction to enlarge the petitioners on regular bail in connection with S.T. Case No.410 of 2024 arising out of Margomunda P.S. Case No. 37 of 2024, registered for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 307, 380, 436, 452 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Madhupur. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that there is vague and omnibus allegation and no specific attributability against the petitioners. 3. It has been contended that even there is no criminal antecedent against the petitioners. 4. The ground of bail having been granted to one of the co-accused person has also been taken as has been granted vide order dated 04.07.2025 passed in B.A. No.5190 of 2025. 5. While on the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State and the learned counsel appearing for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. 6. It has been submitted that in the case diary having with the learned A.P.P. two criminal antecedents have been shown as under paragraph 91 thereof. 2026:JHHC:5738 3 7. It has been contended that so far as the order of bail granted in favour of other co-accused person, namely, Majmul Shekh is concerned, it has been submitted that prayer for bail of Majmul Shekh, on initial occasion, was rejected vide order dated 14.11.2024 passed in B.A. No.8379 of 2024 by taking into consideration the reference of the imputation made in the case diary. 8. It has been contended that subsequent thereto, i.e., vide order dated 04.07.2025 passed in B.A. No.5190 of 2025, bail has been granted, i.e., after the period of custody having been of one year. 9. Learned counsel has submitted that the case of the present petitioners is not at par with the case of Majmul Shekh. 10. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the attributability said to be committed in the First Information Report as also the impugned order by which the prayer for regular bail of the petitioners has been rejected. 11. Much emphasis has been given with respect to the order of bail granted by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.07.2025 passed in B.A. No.5190 of 2025, appended as Annexure-2 to the paper book. 12. This Court has also gone through the order passed with respect to the co-accused, namely, Majmul Shekh, 2026:JHHC:5738 4 who was the petitioner in B.A. No.5190 of 2025 and prior to the said bail application he had also moved an application being B.A. No.8379 of 2024 which was rejected vide order dated 14.11.2024 by the Coordinate Bench and on completion of the period of custody, i.e., of one year, said Majmul Shekh has been released on bail. Herein, as has been submitted that the petitioners have only remained in custody since 29.08.2025, i.e., less than six months. 13. This Court, considering the allegation in the F.I.R. that the nature of allegation is serious and specific overt act has been alleged against the petitioners as the petitioners along with others have entered into the house of the informant and set the house on fire, as such, the petitioners do not deserve privilege of bail. 14. Considering the fact, this Court is of the view that at this stage, the present bail application is to be rejected. 15. Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Date : 25th February, 2026 Birendra/