Manish Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Manish Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Rajmahal, in connection with Rajmahal P.S. Case No.50 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. No.508 of 2024 (S.T. Case No.223 of 2024), subject to the stated conditions of co-operation with the trial, furnishing mobile number and Aadhar Card copy, and non-interference with the informant and witnesses.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, made accused in Rajmahal P.S. Case No.50 of 2024 (S.T. Case No.223 of 2024) for allegedly throwing acid on four victims, should be released on bail.

Court's answer

Considering the facts of the case and the period of custody undergone by the petitioner, the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail.

Ratio / Principle

The enlargement on bail is conditional: the petitioner must co-operate with the trial, furnish his mobile number and photocopy of his Aadhar Card in the court below with an undertaking not to change his mobile number during the trial, and must not annoy or disturb the informant and other witnesses during the trial.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted - Manish Kumar, accused in Rajmahal P.S. Case No.50 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. No.508 of 2024 (S.T. Case No.223 of 2024) for offences punishable under Sections 341, 450, 326A, 504, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (allegedly having inflicted burn injuries on four victims by throwing acid upon them), in custody since 25.04.2024, was enlarged on bail by the High Court of Jharkhand (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.; Order No.04 dated 08-04-2026). Counsel submitted that five witnesses examined had not supported the prosecution even on leading questions and that no witness had been examined after September 2025. Bail bond fixed at Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Rajmahal, conditioned on co-operation with the trial, furnishing his mobile number and Aadhar Card copy with an undertaking not to change the mobile number, and not annoying or disturbing the informant and other witnesses during the trial.

[2026:JHHC:10039] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.12179 of 2025

------

Manish Kumar, Aged about 33 years, S/o- Ravendra Kumar Sharma @ Ravindar Kumar Sharma, R/o- Barakesho, PO+PSNawabganj, Dist.- Farukhabad, Uttar Pradesh .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opposite Party

------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, Advocate For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, Addl.P.P For the Informant : Mr. Xenia Dhar, Advocate ------

Order No.04 Dated-08-04-2026

Heard the parties.

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Rajmahal P.S. Case No.50 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. No.508 of 2024 (S.T. Case No.223 of 2024) registered for the offences punishable under Section 341, 450, 326A, 504, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has inflicted burn injuries upon four victims by throwing acid upon them. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is further submitted that so far as five witnesses have been examined but none of them has supported the case of the prosecution and even though the prosecution put leading questions to them still, they did not support the case of the prosecution. It is next submitted that after the month of September, 2025 no witness has been examined by the prosecution. It is then submitted that the petitioner undertakes that he will co-operate with the trial of the case and that he will not annoy or disturb the informant and other witnesses of the case during the trial of the case. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 25.04.2024 as has been mentioned in para-01 of the instant bail application. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail.

Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the informant oppose the prayer for bail.

Considering the facts of this case and the period of custody undergone by the petitioner, the above-named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Rajmahal in connection with Rajmahal P.S. Case No.50 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. No.508 of 2024 (S.T. Case No.223 of 2024) with the condition that he will co-operate with the trial of the case, furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card in the court below with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the trial of the case and will not annoy or disturb the informant and other witnesses of the case during the trial of the case.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

Dated-08.04.2026-Animesh/