Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 13333 (JHR)

WAKIL MAHTO v. THE STATE OF JAHRKHAND

B.A./3173/2026 · 2026-05-06

Anubha Rawat Choudhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:13546 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3173 of 2026 Wakil Mahto, son of Puran Mahto … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sourabha Kumar Das, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Ms. Anuradha Sahay, Advocate --- 06/6th May 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Deori P.S. Case No. 270/2020 for the offence registered under Section 341, 323, 324, 307, 379, 448 and 34 of IPC, now said to have been pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C., Giridih. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner is named in the FIR and is alleged to have caused grievous injury on the victim, but he has been falsely implicated in this case on account of land dispute. He submits that the petitioner is in custody since 20.11.2025 having no criminal antecedent. 3. The learned counsel for the opposite party has opposed the prayer and has submitted that so far as the petitioner is concerned, there is specific allegation that the petitioner had assaulted the victim by rod and this allegation matches with the injury report, which was found to be grievous in nature. She has submitted that the petitioner has one criminal antecedent as recorded in paragraph 169 of case-diary. 4. To this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the pairvikar of the petitioner is unaware about the criminal antecedent. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the direct allegation against the petitioner in the FIR itself causing grievous injury to the victim and that the petitioner has one criminal antecedent, 2026:JHHC:13546 2 this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is rejected. 6. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 06.05.2026 Uploaded On: 09.05.2026 Mukul/-