Dismissed¶16

MD Nishad @ Chhotu v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC10 Mar 2026B.A./12120/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi; bail application dismissed; B.A. No. 12120 of 2025; Sections 483 & 484 BNSS 2023; Section 308(3) BNS; Section 17 C.L.A. Act; PLFI extortion demand of one crore; Rajesh Yadav subzonal commander; petitioner not named in FIR; two of four witnesses examined; trial in progress; Khunti P.S Case No.173 of 2025; C.J.M. Khunti; Ananda Sen, J.; 10.03.2026; trial to conclude within four months.

What did the court decide?

Bail denied: since the trial is in progress and two of the four witnesses have been examined, the Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of bail; the petitioner's bail prayer in connection with Khunti P.S Case No.173 of 2025 stands rejected. ¶15

MD Nishad @ Chhotu Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

2026:JHHC:6240

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 12120 of 2025

¶3

Md. Nishad @ Chhotu, S/o Late Md. Hussain, R/o Village- Belangi, P.O. and P.s. Khunti, Dist- Khunti

¶4

.... Petitioner(s).

¶5

Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party(s).

¶6

------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

¶7

¶8

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Santosh Kr. Soni, Advocate For the State : Mr. V.S. Sahay, Spl. P.P.

¶9

03/ 10.03.2026: This bail application has been filed under Sections 483 & 484 of BNSS, 2023 wherein, prayer has been made for grant of bail as he is in custody for allegedly committing offence punishable under Section 308(3) of BNS and Section 17 of C.L.A. Act.

¶10

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner learned counsel for the State and have also gone through the impugned order.

¶11

Learned Spl. P.P. opposes the prayer for bail.

¶12

It is alleged that the informant runs a mobile shop, who found a sheet of PLFI kept in a plastic in his courtyard wherein a demand of one crore has been raised by one Rajesh Yadav claiming himself a subzonal commander of PLFI. Further on 16.08.2025, he received a call on mobile demanding the aforesaid amount.

¶13

Petitioner is not named in the FIR.

¶14

During course of argument it has been brought to the notice of this Court by the A.P.P. that two witnesses out of four witnesses have already been examined in this case.

¶15

Since the trial is in progress and two witnesses out of four witnesses have been examined, I am not inclined to grant privilege of bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner in connection with Khunti P.S Case No.173 of 2025, pending in the Court of learned C.J.M. at Khunti, stands rejected.

¶16

Accordingly, the instant bail application is dismissed .

¶17

It is expected that the Trial Court will conclude the trial within a period of four months from the date of receipt a copy of this order.

¶18

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶19

10^th March, 2026 R.S./ Uploaded on 11/03/2026

MD Nishad @ Chhotu v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

MD Nishad @ Chhotu 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

Bhola Bhuiyan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Purusottam Ram Vs State of Jharkhand

MD Mustak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Tinku Tanti Vs the Central Coalfields Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Sunil Kumar Sinha Vs State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Soyna Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand