Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 2104 (JHR)

SERU SARDAR ALIAS SHERU SARDAR ALIAS SARU SARDAR v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./1289/2026 · 2026-03-10

Anubha Rawat Choudhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:6268 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 1289 of 2026 Seru Sardar @ Sheru Sardar @ Saru Sardar, aged about 30 years, Son of Yashpal Singh, Resident of Nehru Colony, Sitaramdera, Post Golmuri, Police Station Golmuri, Town Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikash Singh, Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. Azeemuddin, Advocate --- 02/10.03.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 13.06.2022 in connection with S.T. Case No. 190 of 2022 arising out of Adityapur P.S. Case No. 104 of 2022, for the alleged offence registered under Sections 302, 201, 120(B), 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 (1-b) a, 26, 27 of the Arms Act pending in the court of learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I at Seraikella. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail application of the petitioner has been rejected twice by this Court once in B.A. No. 7201 of 2024 vide order dated 21.11.2024 and thereafter in B.A. No. 2672 of 2025 vide order dated 04.04.2025. He has filed a supplementary affidavit before this Court and has stated that out of 10 witnesses, 8 witnesses have already been examined. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State opposed the prayer. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and this Court finds that there are direct and serious allegation against the petitioner and the trial is at fag end and accordingly, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 2026:JHHC:6268 2 6. This bail application is accordingly rejected. 7. However, the State is directed to ensure prompt production of witnesses. 8. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution as well as Superintendent of Police of the concerned district. 9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX/E-mail’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 10.03.2026 Rakesh/- Uploaded on:-11.03.2026