2026:JHHC:4840 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.10314 of 2025 …. 1. Kripa Sindhu Buriuly, aged about 28 years, son of Purna Chandra Buriuly, resident of village: Mahalipokhar, P.O. and P.S.: Majhgaon, District- West-Singhbhum, 2. Naveen Biruly, aged about 26 years, son of Moko Biruly, resident of village: Mahalipokhar, P.O. and P.S.- Majhgoan, District- West-Singhbhum ……Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand ……Opp. Party ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Ranjan Srivastav, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P …… Order No.02/16th February 2026 1. The present Bail Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners for grant of regular bail, who are in custody in connection with Majhgaon P.S. Case No.26 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 103(1), 238, 126(2), 127(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2) of BNS. 2. As per the F.I.R. the wife of the Informant namely Raimuni Biruly was murdered by some unknown persons by sharp edge weapon. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for one week time to file Supplementary Affidavit regarding the stage of the Trial and submitted that some of the witnesses have been declared hostile by the prosecution. However, prayer for time was not allowed by this Court. It is further submitted that the petitioners are innocent. It is submitted that save and except the confessional statement, there 2026:JHHC:4840 2 is no evidence against the petitioners. It is further submitted that both the petitioners are not named in the F.I.R. It is submitted that the petitioners are in custody since 08.08.2025 (Petitioner No.1) and 06.08.2025 (Petitioner No.2) respectively and hence they may be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer of bail of the petitioners. It is submitted that although both the petitioners are not named in the FIR but during course of investigation, the confessional statement of the co-accused Gangaram Biruli, Savan Birua @ Hawa and one Velanti Biruli were recorded at paragraphs 135, 136, 208 respectively of the case diary and they have supported the case of the prosecution. It is submitted that the murder weapon has been recovered from the house of the co-accused namely Gangaram Biruli and hence the prayer of bail of the petitioners may be rejected. 6. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and from perusal of the records of this case, it appears that although both the petitioners are not named in the F.I.R but during course of investigation Petitioner No.1 namely Kripa Sindhu Buriuly was suspected for causing the death of wife of the Informant whereas the Petitioner No.2 namely Naveen Biruly was involved in the murder of the deceased wife of the Informant with co-accused Gangaram Biruli and Savan Birua @ Hawa. 7. It appears that the co-accused Gangaram Biruli, Savan Birua @ Hawa and one Velanti Biruli, whose confessional statements have been recorded in paragraphs 135, 136, 208 respectively of the case diary, had alleged that the Petitioner No.2 namely Naveen Biruly had helped them by providing Rs.2000/- for filling the petrol during the time of committing the murder of the 2026:JHHC:4840 3 deceased namely Raimuni Biruli. However, the role of the Petitioner No.1 namely Kripa Sindhu Buriuly has not been found. 8. It appears from the para 139 of the case diary mentions the recovery of Axe used for the murder of the deceased. 9. As the Trial is going on, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the Petitioner No.2 namely Naveen Biruly. Accordingly, the prayer of bail of the Petitioner No.2 namely Naveen Biruly is, hereby, rejected at this stage. 10. So far as the, Petitioner No.1 namely Kripa Sindhu Buriuly is concerned as no specific overt-act has been attributed against him and hence the Petitioner No.1 namely Kripa Sindhu Buriuly is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of Ms. A. N. Marki, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chaibasa or her Successor Court in connection with Majhgaon P.S. Case No.26 of 2024 subject to the condition that one of the bailors must be own relative of the petitioner. 11. Thus, the Bail Application No.10314 of 2025 is allowed in part. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Dated :- 16.02.2026 Nishant/-