(2026:JHHC:26254 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7173 of 2026 1.Md. Pappu Khan son of Ibrahim Khan 2. Amna Khatoon, wife of Md. Pappu Khan … … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioners : Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Ms. Shweta Singh, A.P.P. --- 04/31.08.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in custody in connection with Mahagama P.S. Case No. 163 of 2025, for the offences registered under Sections 103(2), 61(2) of the B.N.S. 2023, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Godda. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 1 and 2 are husband and wife respectively. They are named accused in the FIR but the allegations are general and omnibus. Charge sheet has already been submitted, the petitioners may be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-informant has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is specific allegation against the petitioner no. 1 with respect to overt act which ultimately led to the death of Md. Tausif. He submits that the petitioner no. 1 also has a criminal antecedent. 5. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but has submitted that charge sheet has been submitted. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties this court finds that as per FIR petitioner no. 1 stabbed the knife on arm on the deceased and so far as petitioner no. 2 is concerned there is an allegation that the petitioner no. 2 along with two other persons assaulted the deceased on the left side of the ribs and there is allegation that all accused persons assaulted the deceased and others with legs and fists. (2026:JHHC:26254 ) 2 7. In view of the allegation against the petitioner no. 1 of having assaulted the deceased with knife and also assaulted with fist and other blow which ultimately led to death of the deceased, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner no. 1 on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner no. 1 Md. Pappu Khan is rejected. 8. So far as petitioner no. 2 is concerned, she being a lady and there is general allegation against her that she along with her two sons had assaulted, the petitioner no. 2 namely Amna Khatoon is directed to be enlarged on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Godda, in connection with Mahagama P.S. Case No. 163 of 2025 on the following conditions: (i) One of the bailors would be the present pairvikar of the petitioner. (ii) The other bailor should be his close relative. (iii) The petitioner will attend the court on each and every date and on account of his single default, the learned court shall cancel the bail bond furnished by the petitioner. (iv) The petitioner will deposit a self-attested copy of his Aadhar Card along with his mobile number before the learned court which he will not change during the pendency of the case without prior permission of the court. (v) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the proceedings before the learned court below. 9. Let this order along with a copy of the affidavit filed with the bail petition be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e- mail. 10. The instant bail application is partly allowed with the aforesaid conditions. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 31.08.2026 Uploaded on 01.09.2026 Binit/