SANU PHALAHARI ALIAS SUBHAM SATWIK v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
A.B.A./55/2026 · 2026-02-13
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 14683 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 14683 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:JHHC:4178
--1-- A.B.A. No. 55 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 55 of 2026
---- Sanu Phalahari @ Subham Satwik @ Shubham Satwik, aged 24 years, S/o Late Bhim Shankar Phalhari, R/o Bilasi Town, PO and PS – Deoghar, District - Deoghar .... Petitioner -- Versus --
The State of Jharkhand
.... Opposite Party
----
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner :- Mr. Kr. Rishab Anand, Advocate
For the State
:- Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, Advocate
---- 04/13.02.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Deoghar Town P.S. Case No.333 of 2025 for the alleged offences registered under Sections 109(1), 111(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of Arms Act, pending in the Court of learned C.J.M., Deoghar.
3.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the injury has been received by the informant. He further submits that it is not clear pursuant to fire made by whom the injury has been received by the informant. He then submits that in paragraph No.39 of the case diary CCTV footage aspect has been considered and the name of the petitioner is not disclosed and the petitioner was not present on the spot.
2026:JHHC:4178
--2-- A.B.A. No. 55 of 2026
4.
Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer and submits that the allegation of assault are there and victim has stated that threatening is there earlier to the informant.
5. In paragraph No.39 of the case diary CCTV footage aspect has been considered and in that para the name of other accused persons have been disclosed as they have been found in the CCTV footage, however, name of the petitioner is not disclosed in paragraph No.39 of the case diary and further the case diary as pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the State is silent on the point of criminal antecedent and in that view of the matter the petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned Court within two weeks and the learned Court shall release the petitioner on such terms and conditions or the sureties as the learned Court may deem fit and proper.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 13.02.2026 Sangam/