Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 6532 (JHR)

SUNIT DUNGDUNG v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./3115/2026 · 2026-04-18

Anil Kumar Choudhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:JHHC:11349] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. no. 3115 of 2026 Sumit Dungdung, aged about 25 years, S/o- Late Johan Dungdung, Village- Tirra Kemta toli, P.O. & P.S.- Basia, District- Gumla, Jharkhand. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. K.S. Nanda, Adv. For the State : Mr. Shree Prakash Jha , Addl.. PP 02 / 18.04.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with S.T. no. 128 of 2025 arising out of Basia P.S. case no. 46 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in furtherance of the common intention with the co-accused person, committed murder of Mantu Shaw. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false and the informant is not the eye witness to the occurrence. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in jail custody since 23.01.2025 , as mentioned in para 1 of this bail application. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the trial of the case hence, the petitioner may be admitted to bail. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that in view of the serious allegation against the petitioner of committing murder of Mantu Shaw; there is every chance of the petitioner absconding, if released on bail and also there is chance of the petitioner tampering with the evidence. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not be released on bail at this stage. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner as well as the chance of his tampering with the evidence and absconding, if released on bail, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioner be released on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Dated 18.04.2026 Smita/-