BALRAM RAJWAR ALIAS BHOLA RAM v. STATE OF JHARKHAND
B.A./10968/2025 · 2026-01-05
Gautam Kumar Choudhary
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 309 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 309 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:JHHC:74 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 10968 of 2025
------ Balram Rajwar @ Bhola Ram, S/o Manthan Rajwar, R/o Village- Kashijharia, P.O. & P.S.-Pindrajora, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand
.... .... …. Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand
.... .... .... Opposite Party
………..
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
………..
For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Bandana Sinha, APP
------
Order No.06 / Dated : 05.01.2026.
Heard both the sides.
This bail application has been filed on behalf of Balram Rajwar @ Bhola Ram who is in custody since 28.10.2024 in connection with S.T. Case No. 73 of 2025 arising out of Pindrajora P.S. Case No. 247 of 2024 for the offence registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 103(1), 118(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pending in the Court of A.S.J-IV, Bokaro.
The deceased is the wife of the informant and as per the FIR, on 03.10.2024 at about 8:30 am, an altercation took place between the deceased and the wife of the petitioner namely, Soni Devi. When the informant went to intervene, he was also assaulted by the petitioner. A Panchayati was also held in this regard on the same day in the afternoon at 3:30 pm. Petitioner on the same day armed with sword entered into the house of the deceased and inflicted fatal blow on her neck resulting in her death due to critical injuries. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that it was not a case of intentional assault and the incident took place at the spur of moment without any premeditation on a trivial issue of altercation between the wife of the petitioner and the deceased. There is no criminal antecedent against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody for more than one year. Not a single witness has been examined, although the charge has been framed on 07.04.2025.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.
Considering the direct allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is hereby rejected.
2026:JHHC:74 However, considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody for more than one year, let the trial be expedited by the Trial Court.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Pawan/ Uploaded 06.01.2026