( 2026:JHHC:5781 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 11681 of 2025 Md. Irfan @ Irfan Ali S/o Mehdi Hussain, aged about 27 years, residents of Kharswan, Karamdih, P.O. & P.S.- Kharsawan, District- Seraikella- Kharsawan. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Jitesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Naveen Kr. Ganjhu, A.P.P. --- 05/26.02.2026 Heard Mr. Jitesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Naveen Kr. Ganjhu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State of Jharkhand. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 28.07.2024 in connection with S.T. Case No. 229 of 2024 arising out of Chandil (Kapali) P.S. Case No. 168 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 394 of 2024, registered under Section 103(1) & 3(5) of B.N.S., now pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandil. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. which has been filed by the father of the deceased. However, in the F.I.R., it has been alleged that the co-accused used to threaten the son of the informant and the son of the informant used to reside with the wife of the co-accused. He submits that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner. There is allegation that the co- accused Chhotu @ Safauddin used to threaten the son of the informant who is said to have some relationship with the wife of Chhotu @ Safauddin. 5. Learned counsel submits that even if there was any enmity, the enmity was between Chhotu @ Safauddin and the son of the informant. The learned counsel has also submitted that there was no recovery from the petitioner. The charge has been framed on 04.02.2025 and till date no witness has been examined. He has also submitted that the co-accused Md. Mujakkir Ansari @ Mujakkir who had confessed to have used ( 2026:JHHC:5781 ) 2 firearms to kill the deceased has been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in B.A. No. 7917 of 2025 on 10.11.2025 and another co-accused namely, Sonu Bhuiya from whom the arms have been recovered has also been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 17.04.2025 in B.A. No. 2963 of 2025. 6. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that it has come in the case diary at Paragraph-27 that in CCTV footage, one person was resembling the deceased. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that there is only suspicion against the petitioner who has confessed before police but there has been no recovery from the petitioner coupled with the fact that the deceased is said to have died due to gunshot injury and the person who confessed to have used the fire weapon to commit the murder namely, Md. Mujakkir Ansari @ Mujakkir has been enlarged on bail and the person from whom the firearm has been recovered has also been enlarged on bail by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandil in connection with Chandil (Kapali) P.S. Case No. 168 of 2024, on the following conditions: (i) One of the bailors would be the present pairvikar of the petitioner. (ii) The other bailor should be a close relative of the petitioner. (iii) The petitioner will attend the court on each and every date and on account of even single default, the learned court shall cancel the bail bond furnished by the petitioner. (iv) The petitioner will deposit a self-attested copy of his Aadhaar Card along with his mobile number before the learned court which he will not change during the pendency of the case without prior permission of the court. (v) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the proceedings before the learned trial court. 8. The instant application is allowed with the aforesaid conditions. ( 2026:JHHC:5781 ) 3 9. The state is directed to promptly produce the witnesses. 10. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution as well as Superintendent of Police of the concerned district. 11. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. 12. Let a soft copy of this order be forwarded to the learned counsel for the state for compliance. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:26.02.2026 Vedanti Date of Uploading:26.02.2026