Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 3014 (JHR)

MANISH KUMAR v. STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./12179/2025 · 2026-04-08

Anil Kumar Choudhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:JHHC:10039] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.12179 of 2025 ------ Manish Kumar, Aged about 33 years, S/o- Ravendra Kumar Sharma @ Ravindar Kumar Sharma, R/o- Barakesho, PO+PS- Nawabganj, Dist.- Farukhabad, Uttar Pradesh .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, Advocate For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, Addl.P.P For the Informant : Mr. Xenia Dhar, Advocate ------ Order No.04 Dated-08-04-2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Rajmahal P.S. Case No.50 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. No.508 of 2024 (S.T. Case No.223 of 2024) registered for the offences punishable under Section 341, 450, 326A, 504, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has inflicted burn injuries upon four victims by throwing acid upon them. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is further submitted that so far as five witnesses have been examined but none of them has supported the case of the prosecution and even though the prosecution put leading questions to them still, they did not support the case of the prosecution. It is next submitted that after the month of September, 2025 no witness has been examined by the prosecution. It is then submitted that the petitioner undertakes that he will co-operate with the trial of the case and that he will not annoy or disturb the informant and other witnesses of the case during the trial of the case. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 25.04.2024 as has been mentioned in para-01 of the instant bail application. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the informant oppose the prayer for bail. Considering the facts of this case and the period of custody undergone by the petitioner, the above-named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Rajmahal in connection with Rajmahal P.S. Case No.50 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. No.508 of 2024 (S.T. Case No.223 of 2024) with the condition that he will co-operate with the trial of the case, furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card in the court below with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the trial of the case and will not annoy or disturb the informant and other witnesses of the case during the trial of the case. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated-08.04.2026-Animesh/