Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 773 (JHR)

ALFAZ ANSARI v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./2308/2026 · 2026-03-23

Anubha Rawat Choudhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:8019 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 2308 of 2026 Alfaz Ansari, son of Imtiyaz Ansari, aged about 22 years, resident of Village: Tangarbasuli Sakra, P.O. & P.S. Mandar, District Ranchi … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohit, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, Advocate --- 02/23rd March 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Mandar P.S. Case No. 71/2024 corresponding to S.T. Case No. 706/2024 for the offence registered under Section 395 of IPC, wherein charge has been framed under Section 395 & 412 of IPC and Sections 25(1A), 25(1B)(a), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner- XVIII, Ranchi. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is in custody since 20.05.2024 and the charge has been framed on 16.12.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the petitioner has been apprehended on the spot. 4. During the course of hearing, none of the parties have pointed out that the bail application of the petitioner has been rejected earlier on 10.12.2024 in B.A. No. 7952/2024 and vide order dated 28.03.2025 in B.A. No. 2417/2025. Thereafter, the petitioner again moved before this Court in B.A. No. 494/2026, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 25.02.2026 with a liberty to file fresh bail application. 2026:JHHC:8019 2 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the bail petitions of the petitioner having been rejected earlier, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is rejected. 6. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 23.03.2026 Uploaded On: 25.03.2026 Mukul/-