2026:JHHC:24823 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.870 of 2025 --------- Ravi Ranjan Kumar Dhar Dubey @ Vipul Dhar Dubey, aged about 27 years, Son of Manoj Kumar Dhar Dubey, Resident of Ward No.8, Sahijana, P.O & P.S. Garhwa, District Garhwa. ….. Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sabita Devi, aged about 40 years, Wife of Late Sunil Paswan, Resident of Village – Mandra, P.O Shivpur, P.S Kandi, District - Garhwa ..... Respondents With Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.867 of 2025 Rohit Dubey @ Rohit Kumar Dubey, aged about 28 years, Son of Dhananjay Dubey, Resident of Village - Latdag, P.O & P.S.- Meral, District - Garhwa. ….. Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sabita Devi, Wife of Late Sunil Paswan, Resident of Village – Mandra, P.O. - Shivpuri, P.S. - Kandi, District - Garhwa ..... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR --------- For the Appellant(s) : Mr. H. K. Shikarwar, Advocate (In Cr. Appeal No.870/ 2025) Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate (In Cr. Appeal No.867/ 2025) For the State : Mr. Satish Kr. Keshri, A.P.P For the Resp. No.02 : Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate Ms. Tanu Kumari, Advocate --------- Order No.14/ Dated: 18 th August, 2026 1. Heard learned counsel for appellants, learned A.P.P and learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. The appellants, who are in custody since 05.08.2025 and 02.08.2025 have approached this court against the order dated 16.09.2025, passed in MCA Nos.1063 of 2025 and 1026 of 2025 by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge – I -Cum- Special Judge, SC/ ST Act, Garhwa in connection with - 1 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos.870 of 2025 & 867 of 2025 2026:JHHC:24823 Kandi P.S. Case No.73 of 2025, whereby the prayer for grant of regular bail to the appellants has been rejected, in connection with the said case, registered for the offence under Section 103/3(5) of the BNS, 2023, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3 (2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (For short the SC/ ST Act). 3. Innocence of the appellants has been claimed and under taking has been given to participate in the trial. It has been submitted that the charge has already been framed on 27.11.2025 and out of sixteen charge-sheeted witnesses, five have already been examined. Referring to the prosecution story and the materials available on record, it has been submitted that at best the material against these appellants is confession leading to recovery of motorcycle which is said to have been used in commission of crime. The call detail report (CDR) itself suggests that the appellants have communicated several times with the persons, who were involved in commission of crime. It has further been submitted that there is no material to prove that the motorcycle, in question, has been used in commission of crime except the confession. So far as CDR is concerned, which is not enough to connect with the alleged crime, as the parties were known to each other and on that basis criminality cannot be attached. On the above basis, prayer for bail has been made. 4. On the other hand learned A.P.P and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 have opposed the prayer for bail. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the State that the appellants have been charged for the conspiracy also. Conspiracy means meeting of minds. There was several phone calls between the accused persons and it further gets corroborated by the recovery of motorcycle on the confession, which clearly suggests that the appellants have conspired in commission of crime. Referring to the statement of P.W.-3, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent No.02 stating that he has named several accused who were present - 2 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos.870 of 2025 & 867 of 2025 2026:JHHC:24823 at the place of occurrence and he has also stated that he has identified all the accused persons. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, it appears that except confession, there is no other material. So far as evidence of P.W.-3 is concerned, he has assigned no specific role so far as the present appellants are concerned. 6. Considering the above materials and discussions made herein-above, I am inclined to enlarge the appellants on bail accordingly, the appellants are directed to be enlarged on bail, on their furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge – I -Cum- Special Judge, SC/ ST Act, Garhwa, in connection with Kandi P.S. Case No.73 of 2025, subject to the condition that the appellants will submit self-attested photocopy of their Aadhaar Card and also submit their mobile numbers before the learned court below, which they will always keep active and will not change it during pendency of the case without prior permission of the court. 7. It is hereby, clarified that any observation made herein- above is only for the purpose of bail. 8. In the result, the present criminal appeals stand allowed and disposed of. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) 18th August, 2026 Ravi-Chandan/- Uploaded on 19.08.2026 - 3 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos.870 of 2025 & 867 of 2025