Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 3897 (JHR)

SONU KUMAR v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./123/2026 · 2026-03-24

Anubha Rawat Choudhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:8220 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 123 of 2026 Sonu Kumar, S/o Binod Mahto, aged about 19 years, resident of Mundichak, P.O.-Mohanpur, P.S.-Gourichak, District-Patna, Bihar, Pin:- 804453. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Gajendra Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, Advocate For the Informant : Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Advocate --- 03/24.03.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 23.08.2025 in connection with Katras (East Basuria O.P) P.S. Case No. 136 of 2025 corresponding to S.T. Case No. 519 of 2025, for the alleged offence registered under Sections 129, 109(1), 303(2), 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, at Civil Court Dhanbad. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner does not even have any criminal antecedent. The petitioner is just 19 years of age. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial is commenced, but for last four dates no witness is coming. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner of cutting the throat of the victim with sharp edge. The victim is the informant of the case. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering fact that there is direct allegation against the petitioner 2026:JHHC:8220 2 who is a named accused in the First Information Report, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 6. The instant bail application is accordingly rejected. 7. However, the State is directed to ensure prompt production of witnesses. 8. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution as well as Superintendent of Police of the concerned district. 9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX/E-mail’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 24.03.2026 Rakesh/- Uploaded on:-25.03.2026