SUDESH SHARMA @ SUDESH VISHWAKARMA v. STATE OF JHARKHAND
B.A./2702/2026 · 2026-04-06
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 4978 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 4978 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:JHHC:9527
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 2702 of 2026
Sudesh Sharma @ Sudesh Vishwakarma, S/O Late Maloo Vishwakarma
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Md. Sajid Yunus, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Azeemuddin, APP
---
05/06.04.2026
Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 21.11.2025 in connection with S.T. No. 49 of 2026 arising out of Garhwa P.S. Case No. 571 of 2025, registered under Sections 105/238/3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, now pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the victim is the daughter of the petitioner and as per the allegation, when the petitioner saw his daughter aged 16 years in compromising position with one person, the petitioner assaulted her and she became unconscious and when he took her to the hospital, she was found dead. The dead-body of the victim was recovered when the petitioner and two others were trying to set ablaze the dead-body in the fire.
4.
Learned counsel for the opposite party- State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner with respect to honour killing of his own daughter.
5. To this, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the charge has already been framed.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the direct allegation against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected.
7. However, the State is directed to produce the witnesses
2026:JHHC:9527
2
promptly before the learned court.
8.
Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this
order to the Director, Prosecution and also to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance.
9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:06.04.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:07.04.2026