Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 14231 (JHR)

NOWEL SANDY PURTY v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./11642/2025 · 2026-03-12

Anubha Rawat Choudhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:6637 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 11642 of 2025 Nowel Sandy Purty aged about 35 years, Son of Patrash Sandy Purty, Resident of Village: Larawali, Post Office & Police Station: Bandhgoan, District: West Singhbhum State: Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, Advocate --- 03/12.03.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 21.11.2022 in connection with Sessions Trial No.105 of 2023, arising out of Arki P.S. Case No.43/2021, registered for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 302, 452, 354, 427, 504, 506 of IPC, and under Section 17 of CLA Act, now pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge at Khunti. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 21.11.2022 and as per the impugned order dated 01.11.2025, out of 10 charge sheeted witnesses, only one witness was examined, although the charge was framed on 21.09.2023. He has submitted that one co-accused Ratnu Tuti, has been enlarged on bail in B.A. No.7438 of 2023. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds that there is serious allegation against the petitioner and the petitioner also has criminal antecedents, total 15 in number as mentioned in the impugned order. In such circumstances, the case of the petitioner is different from the case of co-accused, who was said to have no criminal antecedent. 5. Considering the seriousness of offence, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. However, the State is directed to ensure prompt production of witnesses. 6. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this 2026:JHHC:6637 2 order to the Director of Prosecution and also to the S.P. of the concerned district to ensure compliance. 7. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:12.03.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:13.03.2026