Dismissed¶¶16

Sanjhli Kisku v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC18 Feb 2026B.A./11149/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sanjhli Kisku v. State of Jharkhand, B.A No. 11149 of 2025, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Deepak Roshan, J.), decided 18th February 2026. Regular bail sought for offences under Sections 103(1) of the B.N.S., 2023 (Pakur (M) PS Case No. 178 of 2025; S.T Case No. 166 of 2025). Bail rejected having regard to gravity of offence, allegation against the petitioner and stage of trial; custody since 25.07.2025 noted; no precedent discussed; no costs or amounts awarded.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail refused: having regard to the gravity of the offence, the allegation made against the petitioner and the stage of trial, the court was not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, and the bail application was dismissed at this stage. ¶¶16

Sanjhli Kisku Vs the State of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

2026:JHHC:4746 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

B.A No. 11149 of 2025

¶3

Sanjhli Kisku, aged about 38 years, wife of Samiel Marandi, resident of Village Dharsundi, PO Maharo & PS-Pakur (M), District Pakur

¶4

... … Petitioner(s) Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party(s)

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶7

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chandan Kumar Bhagat, Advocate Mr. Baban Prasad, Advocate Beby Rani, Advocate For the State : Mr. Azeemuddin, APP

¶8

¶9

Order No. 3 /Dated: 18^th February 2026

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

The instant bail application has been preferred by the petitioner for grant of regular bail for the offences registered under Sections 103(1) of the B.N.S., 2023 in connection with Pakur (M) PS Case No. 178 of 2025 corresponding to S.T Case No. 166 of 2025.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the instant case is based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has failed to establish the motive of the petitioner for the commission of the alleged offence. He lastly, submits that the petitioner is in custody since 25.07.2025 as such the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Learned APP opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that there is direct allegation against this petitioner. He submits that due to lathi blow the victim died and the witnesses have supported the prosecution case. He further submits that according to the post-mortem report injury sustained by the victim was caused by hard and sharp object. 4. Having regard to the gravity of the offence and the allegation made against the petitioner and the stage of trial, I am not inclined to

¶14

¶15

2026:JHHC:4746

¶16

enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands dismissed, at this stage.

¶17

(Deepak Roshan, J.) 18^th February 2026 Amit Uploaded on 19/02/2026

¶18

Sanjhli Kisku v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjhli Kisku 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

Rustam Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dr.Abdul Quadir Jilani Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Devanand Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rishi Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ajay Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sunil Modi Alias Sunil Kumar Modi Vs the State of Jharkhand