MUKESH SAW ALIAS PRATAP JEE ALIAS MICHAEL v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
B.A./714/2026 · 2026-04-02
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 3297 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 3297 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:JHHC:9326
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 714 of 2026
Mukesh Saw @ Pratap Jee @ Michael, aged about 36 years, son of Niranjan Saw, resident of Chedra, P.O. and P.S. Bariyatu, District-Latehar
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
… … Opp. Party
---
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner
: Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, Advocate
For the Opp. Party
: Ms. Lily Sahay, Advocate
---
03/2nd April 2026
1.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Keredari P.S. Case No. 67 of 2024 for the offence registered under Section 302/34 of IPC and Sections 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hazaribagh.
2. The allegation, as per the written report of the informant, is that on 17.04.2024, 8-10 boys went to see Ramnavami Mela with informant’s brother and when his brother and his friend were returning home on one motorcycle and when they reached near Gyan Jyoti Vidya Mandir School at Kandaber, some unknown persons overtook the motorcycle of his brother and shot him and fled away.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and apart from the confessional statement, there is nothing against the petitioner. He has also submitted that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R.
4.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that there are as many as 16 criminal cases against the petitioner of similar nature and the petitioner has also confessed his guilt.
2026:JHHC:9326
2
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the numerous criminal antecedents of the petitioner of similar nature, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is rejected.
6. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Dated: 02.04.2026
Uploaded On: 03.04.2026
Mukul/-