Dismissed¶14

Rahul Kalindi v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC4 Dec 2025B.A./9167/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application (B.A. No. 9167 of 2025) dismissed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Ambuj Nath, J.) on 04.12.2025. Accusations under Sections 103(1), 238(a), 3(5) B.N.S., 2023 in R.I.T. P.S. Case No. 105 of 2024 / G.R. Case No. 67 of 2025 / S.T. Case No. 37 of 2025, Sessions Court Seraikella. Death of Sambhu Lohar on 23.11.2024, head crushed by heavy stone; motive per witness Akhan Kairawat: suspicion of mobile-phone theft; recovery of bloodstained cloth and motorcycle on confessions of the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Considering the nature of allegation, the Court was not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail; their prayer for bail stands rejected. ¶14

Rahul Kalindi Vs the State of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. (2025:JHHC:36376) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

B.A. No. 9167 of 2025

¶3

Rahul Kalindi, aged about 20 years, son of Somapado Kalindi, resident of village- Dobodungri, P.O.- Bantanagar, P.S.- R.I.T, District- SeraikellaKharsawan

¶4

Dharmendra Baskey, aged about 45 years, S/o Lt John Baskey, R/o Bagbera, C.P. Tola, P.O & P.S. Bagbeda, at present residing Bantanagar PHD, P.O. Bantanagar, P.S.- R.I.T., Distt. Seraikella- Kharsawan

¶5

¶6

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

¶7

----For the Petitioners : Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P. ---

¶8

03/04.12.2025

¶9

Heard the parties.

¶10

The petitioners have been made accused in connection with R.I.T. P.S. Case No. 105 of 2024, corresponding to G.R. Case No.67 of 2025, S.T. Case No.37 of 2025, for the offences registered under Sections 103(1), 238(a), 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023, pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Serailkella.

¶11

23.11.2024 at about 6:30A.M., informant came to know that his son Sambhu Lohar was lying in injured condition in his house. The informant rushed to the place of occurrence and saw that his son had died and his head was crushed by a heavy stone.

¶12

Statement of witness Akhan Kairawat has been recorded during investigation, in which he has stated that the petitioners suspected that the deceased had taken away their mobile phones. He has further stated that both the petitioners went to the house of the deceased. After some time, they returned and told this witness that they had murdered the deceased as he was not returning their mobile phones.

¶13

Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P. has submitted that on the basis of confession of the petitioner No.2, bloodstained cloth was recovered whereas on the basis of confession of petitioner No.1, the motorcycle used in the commission of the offence was also recovered.

¶14

Considering the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. Accordingly, their prayer for bail stands rejected.

¶15

(Ambuj Nath, J.)

¶16

December 4, 2025 Jay/-

Rahul Kalindi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Kalindi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhiyan Singh Rajput Alias Chandan Kumar Gupta Alias Abhiyan Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Deepak Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Swapan Gorain Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bharul Alias Badruddin Alias Badruddin Hussain Vs the State of Jharkhand

Santosh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Damodar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand