JUBAIL SEIKH ALIAS JUBAIL HASSAN ALIAS ZAKIR HUSSAIN v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
B.A./11842/2025 · 2026-03-13
Rajesh Kumar
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 4532 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 4532 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:JHHC:6715
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.11842 of 2025 ---- Jubail Seikh @ Jubail Hassan @ Zakir Hussain aged about 25 years, Son of Safajul Seikh, resident of Mothabari, P.O.+P.S.- Mothabari & District – Malda (West Bengal).
…. …. Petitioner(s)/Applicant(s) Versus
The State of Jharkhand
…. …. Opposite Party ----
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ----
For the Petitioner(s)/Applicant(s)
: Mr. Saurav Mahto, Adv.
For the State
: Mr. Sardhu Mahto, A.P.P. ----
07/Dated: 13th March, 2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the State.
2. The applicant who is in custody since 19.03.2020 has approached this Court for grant of regular bail in connection with Dumka (Masanjore) P.S. Case No.47 of 2020 (in Sessions Trial No.94 of 2020), registered for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Additional Session Judge-I, Dumka.
3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant(s) that complete set of FIR along with its enclosure have been annexed with this bail application and there is no suppression on his/her part.
4. Innocence has been claimed by the learned counsel for the applicant and undertaking has been given for participation in the trial. It has been submitted that the applicant was on his duty when the alleged occurrence has taken place. On the above basis, prayer for bail has been made.
5.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.
6. From perusal of the records, it appears that it is a case of committing murder of his own wife. There is recovery of weapon used in the crime also.
7. Considering the material available on record, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail, at this stage. Accordingly, the present bail application is hereby rejected.
8. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible preferably within six months.
9. The applicant is at liberty to approach the Court if the trial is not concluded within six months.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Dated: 13th March, 2026 Amar/- Uploaded