Mahbub Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

2026:JHHC:7668

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.10713 of 2025

Mahbub Ansari, aged about 27 years, S/o. Shakur Sheikh Ansari @ Shakur Shekh, R/o. Vill.- Chiraunjiya, P.O.- Nawada, P.S.Garhwa, Dist.- Garhwa, Jharkhand.

¶4

… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

¶5

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava

¶6

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate : Mr. Ganesh Ram, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, A.P.P.

¶7

Order No.04/Dated- 19.03.2026

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P.

¶9

The petitioner has been made an accused in connection with Garhwa P.S. Case No. 402 of 2025, registered for offences punishable under Sections 332(b), 64 & 115(2) of the B.N.S., 2023, which is pending in the Court of learned C.J.M, Garhwa.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather he has been falsely implicated in this case due to village politics. The version contained in the F.I.R. itself is totally false. The occurrence is alleged to have occurred in the night at 10:30 P.M. on 04.09.2025 but the F.I.R. was lodged on 06.09.2025 and the petitioner was also arrested on that date. It is further submitted that the allegation of breaking the box, due to which the informant woke up, also does not find corroboration from the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer (I.O.) where no broken or half broken box was sealed at the place of occurrence. The informant has also stated that she alongwith her father-in-law was brutally assaulted by the petitioner but the injury report of the informant clearly shows that no any injury was found on the internal or external part of the body of the informant. Injury report of father-in-law of the informant has also not been obtained during investigation. It is also submitted that

¶11

1 | P a g e

¶12

2026:JHHC:7668

¶13

petitioner has no criminal antecedent and petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the trial of the case and abides by all terms and conditions which may be imposed. Hence, the petitioner may be admitted to bail.

¶14

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner but has not disputed the aforesaid contentions.

¶15

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and I find substance in the contentions raised on behalf of petitioner. Therefore, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M, Garhwa in connection with Garhwa P.S. Case No. 402 of 2025 with condition that petitioner shall appear physically on each and every date during the trial of case till its conclusion unless his physical appearance is dispensed with for sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the learned trial court and with further condition that petitioner shall not indulge in tampering with the prosecution evidence or influence the witnesses or gain over them.

¶16

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶17

19.03.2026

¶18

Rahul Uploaded on 20.03.2026

¶19

2 | P a g e

Mahbub Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahbub Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashish Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

Raju Gorai Alias Rajeev Gorai Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashish Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

Pintu Mandal @ Pintu Kumar Mandal Vs State of Jharkhand

Sunita Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Emeli Marandi Alias Aimeli Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand