Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 3878 (JHR)

SANAULLAH @ MD ANAULLAH @ MD SANAULLAH v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./10480/2025 · 2026-02-05

Gautam Kumar Choudhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:3103 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 10480 of 2025 ------ Sanaullah @ Md. Anaullah @ Md. Sanaullah, son of Ais Mohammd @ Aayesh Mohammad, resident of Village Koyalpathar, P.O. Balidiapukur, P.S. Ratna, District Malda (West Bengal) .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opp. Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, A.P.P. ------ Order No.03 / Dated : 05.02.2026 Bail petition filed on behalf of the petitioner- Sanaullah @ Md. Anaullah @ Md. Sanaullah, who is in custody since 23.05.2025 in connection with S.T. No. 125 of 2025 arising out of Pakur Town P.S. Case No. 191 of 2019 for the offence registered under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Pakur, is pressed into motion. The matter involves kidnapping for ransom of the husband of the informant, who was called for repairing of Poclain machine from mobile number 8405062776. During investigation, name of this petitioner has come-up. He had conspired along with other co-accused persons to abduct the husband of the informant in reference to ransom demand of Rs.10,00,000/-. The victim returned home and his statement was recorded and stated that he was kept in the house of this petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that he had no concern with the said abduction and he has no criminal antecedent. Further the matter is now settled and a compromise petition has been filed. Learned A.P.P. opposed the bail petition. It is submitted that there is flight risk of this petitioner, as the other co-accused persons are still at large. Offence is non-compoundable and therefore compromise will be of no avail. Considering the gravity of offence, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit Uploaded 06.02.2026