Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 7111 (JHR)

SURJA PAHARIA ALIAS SURESH MALTO ALIAS SURYA PAHARIA v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./1610/2026 · 2026-04-23

Anil Kumar Choudhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

( 2026:JHHC:12014 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 1610 of 2026 ------ Surja Paharia @ Suresh Malto @ Surya Paharia, aged about 28 years, son of late Dharma Paharia, resident of Village-Kesam Dando, P.O.-Sundarpahari, P.S.-Sundarpahari, Dist.-Godda … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Akhouri A. Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sinha, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.04 Dated- 23.04.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with S.T. No. 169 of 2024 arising out of Littipara P.S. Case No.23 of 2024 (G.R. No. 604 of 2024) registered for the offences punishable under sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed the murder of Siman Malto. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and all the witnesses have been examined who have supported the case of the prosecution and the trial is at its fag end. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution therefore, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding, if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be admitted to bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the fact that during the trial all the witnesses of the prosecution have supported the case of the prosecution and the chance of the petitioner absconding if released on bail, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the abovenamed petitioner be admitted to bail at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the abovenamed petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 23.04.2026 Gunjan-