2026:JHHC:8237 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 11868 of 2025 --------- Deepak Mahto, aged about 35 years son of Late Rambalak Mahto, resient of Burma Mines Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S. Burma Mines, District-Singhbhum (East) … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …. Respondent With B.A. No. 247 of 2026 --------- Rama Shankar Gupta, aged about 50 years, son of Late Lalu Prasad Gupta, resident of Bada Jamda, Football Maidan, P.O.-Bada Jamda, Football Maidan Jamda, P.S.-Gua, District-West Singhbhum … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …. Respondent --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Naveen Kumar Ganjhu, A.P.P. Mr. Saket Kumar, Advocate ----------- 03/Dated: 23rd March, 2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Both the cases arising of the same FIR have been heard together. 3. The petitioners have been made accused in connection with Gua P.S. Case No. 45 of 2025 registered under sections 310(2), 311, 331(4), 351(3), 117(2) and 308(4) of BNS Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that they have been falsely implicated in this case only on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused person and the claim of 2026:JHHC:8237 2 the Investigating Officer in the CCTV footage, the vehicle of the petitioner, Deepak Mahto has been identified to be used in the commission of dacoity. It is a case wherein some ornaments and cash of Rs.2.5 lakhs has been robbed from the house of the informant but the alleged confessional statement does not leading to any recovery. The petitioners have also not been put under T.I. Parade for identification and showing their complicity in the alleged offence. Charge-sheet has already been submitted against the petitioners, therefore, there is no chance of absconding and tampering with the prosecution case. Petitioners undertake to co-operate with the trial of the case and remain physically present on each and every date till the conclusion of the trial. The petitioners are languishing in judicial custody for a considerable period of time. Hence the petitioners may be enlarged on bail. 5. Learned Addl. P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners and has submitted that during investigation, sufficient positive materials have been collected showing involvement of the present petitioners in the alleged dacoity. Hence, the petitioners may not be enlarged on bail. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case as discussed above and the manner of implication of the petitioners and also in view of the fact that no T.I. Parade has been conducted and no recovery of articles from the possession of the present petitioners, I am inclined to release the above named petitioners, on bail. Accordingly, the petitioners named above, are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail 2026:JHHC:8237 3 bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Singhbhum West at Chaibasa in connection with Gua P.S. Case No. 45 of 2025 with condition that petitioners shall appear physically on each and every date during the trial of case till its conclusion unless their physical appearance is dispensed with for sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the learned trial court and with further condition that petitioners shall not indulge in tampering with the prosecution evidence or influence the witnesses or gain over them. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Pappu/- 23/03/2026