LUKHIRAM MARANDI @ BABULAL MARANDI v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
B.A./4200/2026 · 2026-06-09
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 15880 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 15880 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
( 2026:JHHC:16484 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 4200 of 2026
Lukhiram Marandi @ Babulal Marandi son of Ramesh Marandi
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
…
… Opp. Party ---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vishnupad Singh, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Fahad Alam, A.P.P.
---
03/09.06.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Hiranpur P.S. Case No. 35 of 2024, S.T. No. 143 of 2024, for the offences registered under Section 376 (D) of IPC, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and has no criminal antecedent. He submits that the petitioner is in custody since
15.06.2024.
4.
Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that allegation against the petitioner and other co-accused is very serious and trial has already commenced. He submits that out of 16 charge sheeted witnesses, 2 witnesses were examined till 03.02.2026 and a few must have been examined by now.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the seriousness of allegation made against the petitioner, and also the fact that bail application of the co-accused namely Chand Soren, Vishnath Hembrom @ Vishwanath Hembrom, Vivek Soren and Manvel Marandi @ Manwel Marandi have been rejected by this court vide orders dated 31.07.2025 and 01.09.2025 in B.A. No. 6302 of 2025 and in B.A. No. 7464 of 2025 respectively and the trial is going on, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected.
6. However, the State is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses be promptly produced before the court.
( 2026:JHHC:16484 ) 2
7. The learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution and to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned District to ensure compliance.
8. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e-mail.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 09.06.2026 Uploaded on 10.06.2026 Binit/