Dismissed¶¶18

Bishnu Kumar Mandal Alias Bishnu Mandal v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC13 Mar 2026B.A./11904/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejected; Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi; B.A. No. 11904 of 2025; 2026:JHHC:6807; Section 309(4) BNS 2023; Hiranpur P.S. Case No. 56 of 2025; G.R. No. 624 of 2025; Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur; robbery at revolver point; Rs. 6,45,000/-; named in FIR; direct allegation; custody since 28.07.2025; charge sheet filed; Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary; decided 13.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for bail rejected: in view of the direct allegation against the petitioner and the petitioner being named in the FIR, the court was not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. ¶¶18

Bishnu Kumar Mandal Alias Bishnu Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

( 2026:JHHC:6807 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 11904 of 2025

¶3

Bishnu Kumar Mandal @ Bishnu Mandal aged about 25 years, son of Ujjwal Mandal, Resident of Village Gopalpur, P.O.-Dangapara, P.S. Hiranpur, District- Pakur, Jharkhand

¶4

… … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party

¶7

¶8

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶9

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Gautam, Advocate : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, APP

¶11

¶12

04 /13.03.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

¶13

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 28.07.2025 in connection with Hiranpur P.S. Case No. 56 of 2025, corresponding to G.R. No. 624 of 2025 for the offences registered under Sections 309(4) of the B.N.S. 2023, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Pakur.

¶14

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case by the informant who is a resident of West Bengal and is engaged in trading of Cattle as per the FIR itself. He submits that the informant is engaged in taking away the cattle to Bangladesh and it is very surprising that the informant knows the name of the petitioner, who is resident of Jharkhand. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody since 28.07.2025 and charge sheet has been submitted in this case.

¶15

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner along with the other accused have

¶16

( 2026:JHHC:6807 )

¶17

forcibly, on the point of revolver, has taken away Rs. 6,45,000/- from the informant.

¶18

5. In view of the fact that there is direct allegation against the petitioner and the petitioner is named in FIR, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected.

¶19

6. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e-mail.

¶20

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶21

Dated: 13.03.2026 Uploaded on: 13.03.2026

¶22

Binit/

¶23

Bishnu Kumar Mandal Alias Bishnu Mandal v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bishnu Kumar Mandal Alias Bishnu Mandal 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

Satyanarayan Goswami Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sonu Karmakar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Fuleshwar Ram Vs Smt Balmati Devi

Bittu Khan Alias Umer Gul Alias Md.Umer Gul Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sonu Alias Sohan Yadav Alias Sonu Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Moran Singh Purty Vs State of Jharkhand