Dismissed¶18

Ramdev Paswan v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC10 Mar 2026B.A./1301/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

There is direct allegation against the petitioner and the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail; accordingly the bail application is rejected. ¶15

Ramdev Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:JHHC:6270

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

B.A. No. 1301 of 2026

¶4

Ramdev Paswan, aged about 41 years, Son of Dasrath Ram, Resident of Village- Nawadih, P.O. Sabalpur, P.S. Suriya, District-Giridih.

¶5

… … Petitioner

¶6

¶7

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --For the Petitioner : Mr. Suman Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate

¶8

¶9

02 /10.03.2026

¶10

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 18.12.2024 in connection with S.T. No. 208 of 2025 arising out of Saria P.S. Case No. 229 of 2024, for the alleged offence registered under Sections 103, 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih.

¶12

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the husband of the victim and First Information Report (F.I.R.) has been lodged by the brother of the deceased, who is not an eye witness to the incident.

¶13

4. Learned counsel also submits that as per the F.I.R., when the informant reached the place of occurrence all the accused persons had fled away. Upon the statement of one of the child of the petitioner, who stated that his father, uncle, aunty and grandmother all had assaulted the victim and the petitioner had strangulated the neck of the mother (deceased) and she was found dead.

¶14

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer.

¶15

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that there is direct allegation against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶16

¶17

2026:JHHC:6270

¶18

7. This bail application is accordingly rejected.

¶19

8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX/E-mail’.

¶20

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶21

10.03.2026 Rakesh/Uploaded on:-11.03.2026

¶22