RAJIV SAMAD ALIAS RAJEEV SAMAD v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
B.A./2151/2026 · 2026-03-18
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 14408 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 14408 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:JHHC:7470
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 2151 of 2026
Rajiv Samad @ Rajeev Samad, aged about 33 years, son of Late Dangol Samad, resident of village: Kuituka, P.O.: Unchbita, P.S.: Toklo, District: West Singhbhum.
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
… … Opp. Party
---
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner
: Mr. Rajesh Ranjan Srivastav, Advocate
For the Opp. Party
: Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, Advocate
---
04/18th March 2026
1.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Toklo P.S. Case No. 13/24 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 260/24 (S.T. Case No. 44/25) for the offence registered under Section 103(1)/3 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum, Camp Court at Sub-Divisional Court, Chakradharpur.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he is in custody for last 18 months. He has also submitted that a few witnesses have been examined who have not fully supported the prosecution case.
3.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the murder weapon has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner as is apparent from the impugned order. He submits that the trial can be expedite.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the serious allegation against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is rejected.
5. However, the State is directed to ensure prompt production of the witnesses during trial.
2026:JHHC:7470
2
6.
Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Director, Prosecution as well as Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure prompt production of the witnesses on the date as may be fixed by the learned trial court.
7. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Dated: 18.03.2026
Uploaded On: 19.03.2026
Mukul/-