Petitioners sought anticipatory bail in a murder case alleging false implication. The court found direct and specific allegations that they forcefully entered the informant's house and assaulted her and her husband, who died, with witnesses supporting the prosecution, and rejected the prayer.
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:17898
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1962 of 2026
----
1. Zubaida Khatoon @ Jubeda Khatun, aged about 53 years, D/o Ainul Haque, R/o 193, Cross Road No.10A, Jawahar Nagar, Mango, PO and PS – Mango, Jamshedpur, District – Singhbhum East
2. Rashida Khatun, aged about 53 years, W/o Talib Hussain, R/o 127, Shastri Nagar, Block No.2, Kadma, PO and PS – Kadma, Town – Jamshedpur, District – Singhbhum East
3. Nasima Khatoon @ Nasim Khatoon, aged about 51 years, W/o Mohammad Rashid Ansari, resident of Fauladpur, PO and PS – Ratni Bazar, District – Jahanabad, Bihar - 804425
.... Petitioners
-- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
--For the Petitioners :- Mr. Tejo Mistry, Advocate For the State :- Mrs. Mohua Palit, Advocate ---02 /19.06.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Mango P.S. Case No.183 of 2023 for the alleged offences registered under Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and the allegation of assault is not made out against the petitioners. He
--1--
A.B.A. No. 1962 of 2026
2026:JHHC:17898
further submits that due to assault made by the petitioners the deceased has not died. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits that the petitioners have forcefully entered into the house of the informant and assaulted the husband of the informant and thereafter the husband of the informant has died. She further submits that the independent witnesses in paragraph Nos.12, 13 and 14 have fully supported the prosecution case. 5. In view of above submission and looking into the contents of the FIR it transpires that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of entering into the house of the informant forcefully and assaulted her and her husband as a result of which the informant became unconscious and the husband of the informant has died. In paragraph Nos.12, 13 and 14 of the case diary, the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution.
6. In the attending facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners are hereby rejected.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Dated 19.06.2026 Sangam/
--2--
A.B.A. No. 1962 of 2026
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners apprehending arrest under Sections 302/34 IPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Zubaida Khatoon @ Jubeda Khatun
Rashida Khatun
Nasima Khatoon @ Nasim Khatoon
The State of Jharkhand
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
