Regular bail application by an accused in custody since November 2022 for offences including murder under the IPC and Section 17 of the CLA Act. The court noted serious allegations, 15 criminal antecedents, and distinction from a co-accused granted bail. Bail was refused, with directions to the State to ensure prompt witness production.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2026:JHHC:6637
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 11642 of 2025
Nowel Sandy Purty aged about 35 years, Son of Patrash Sandy Purty, Resident of Village: Larawali, Post Office & Police Station: Bandhgoan, District: West Singhbhum State: Jharkhand.
… … Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, Advocate
03 /12.03.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 21.11.2022 in connection with Sessions Trial No.105 of 2023, arising out of Arki P.S. Case No.43/2021, registered for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 302, 452, 354, 427, 504, 506 of IPC, and under Section 17 of CLA Act, now pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge at Khunti.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 21.11.2022 and as per the impugned order dated 01.11.2025, out of 10 charge sheeted witnesses, only one witness was examined, although the charge was framed on 21.09.2023. He has submitted that one co-accused Ratnu Tuti, has been enlarged on bail in B.A. No.7438 of 2023.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds that there is serious allegation against the petitioner and the petitioner also has criminal antecedents, total 15 in number as mentioned in the impugned order. In such circumstances, the case of the petitioner is different from the case of co-accused, who was said to have no criminal antecedent.
5. Considering the seriousness of offence, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. However, the State is directed to ensure prompt production of witnesses.
6. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this
1
2026:JHHC:6637
order to the Director of Prosecution and also to the S.P. of the concerned district to ensure compliance.
7. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Date of Order:12.03.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:13.03.2026
2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner in custody since 21.11.2022 on murder charges should be enlarged on bail given trial delay and a co-accused's bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Nowel Sandy Purty
The State of Jharkhand
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
