Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 6315 (JHR)

RITIK SINGH v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

A.B.A./1723/2026 · 2026-04-17

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:11124 --1-- A.B.A. No. 1723 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1723 of 2026 ---- Ritik Singh, aged about 25 years, son of Manjeet Singh, resident of H. No.18C, Hari Mandir Road, Birsanagar, PO – Golmuri, PS and District – East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Avnish Prakhar, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Vijoy Kr. Sinha, Advocate ---- 02/17.04.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Sidgora P.S. Case No.120 of 2024 for the alleged offences registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 325, 307, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Jamshedpur. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and no recovery has been made from the possession of the petitioner and in view of that the privilege of anticipatory bail may kindly be granted. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits that the petitioner happened to be accomplice of the 2026:JHHC:11124 --2-- A.B.A. No. 1723 of 2026 other accused persons and the assault was made upon the Golu who was a witness in another case and subsequently he has succumbed to the injury. 5. Considering that the petitioner is said to be accomplice of other co-accused persons and assault has been made upon the person, who was a witness in another case, who was subsequently succumbed to the injury. 6. In the attending facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 17.04.2026 Sangam/