2026:JHHC:15915 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.4759 of 2026 ---- Vijay Krishna Pandey …. …. Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Jharkhand …. …. Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY ---- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Adv. For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Pratik Sen, Adv. ---- 02/Dated: 02nd June, 2026 1. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP as well as Mr. Pratik Sen learned counsel appearing for the Informant. 2. The petitioner is an accused in connection with Kadma P.S. Case No.106 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No.312 of 2026. 3. The son of the informant was indiscriminately fired upon by the petitioner and others resulting in his death. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner is named in the First Information Report but in the CCTV Footage his presence has not been noted as it appears from Paragraph-11 of the case diary. It has been submitted that only Ayan @ Masood Iqbal and Sadab Khan @ Billi were found to be present at the place of occurrence. Learned counsel submits that so far as the case of the prosecution that the petitioner and other co-accused persons were in constant touch with each other is concerned, the petitioner owns a tent house and two of the accused works under him as manager and labour supplier and therefore, it was but natural that they would be in constant touch with each other. Learned counsel submits that the only incriminating factor against the petitioner appears to be the confessional statement of the co-accused and his self- confession. 5. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has two criminal cases instituted against him and in both the cases he has been acquitted. Learned counsel further adds that the petitioner is in custody since 22.12.2025. 6. Learned APP as well as the learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Mr. Pratik Sen, learned counsel for the 2026:JHHC:15915 Page | 2 B.A. No.4759 of 2026 informant has submitted that the petitioner was firing from inside the car and therefore his presence could not be captured in the CCTV Footage. It has further been submitted that the confessional statement of the co-accused and the confession of the present petitioner matches which further proves the case of the prosecution about the petitioner firing at the son of the Informant. 7. It appears that although the petitioner is named in the First Information Report but it has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that his presence has not been noted at the place of occurrence as per the CCTV Footage. The only other circumstance, therefore, appears to be the confessional statement of the co-accused and the self-confession of the petitioner. There does not appear to be any further material indicating the complicity of the petitioner in the alleged firing upon the son of the informant. 8. Regard being had to the above, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in connection with Kadma P.S. Case No.106 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No.312 of 2026. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) Dated: 02nd June, 2026 Amar/- Uploaded on 05.06.2026