Dismissed¶18

Rajesh Mahato v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC17 Mar 2026B.A./2098/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rajesh Mahato v. The State of Jharkhand, B.A. No. 2098 of 2026, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, decided 17.03.2026 (neutral citation 2026:JHHC:7288) by Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. Bail application; Birsanagar P.S. Case No. 67 of 2025, Jamshedpur; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Sections 140(1), 103(1), 61(2), 3(5); custody since 07.08.2025; petitioner named in FIR on suspicion; recovery of deceased's slipper and eco-van on confessional statement; settlement plea denied by informant; earlier sanha; bail refused, application dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Bail refused: although the petitioner is named in the FIR only on suspicion, on his confession there is recovery of the deceased's belongings and the eco-van allegedly used in the crime, so the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. ¶17

Rajesh Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

2026:JHHC:7288

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

B.A. No. 2098 of 2026

¶4

Rajesh Mahato, aged about 38 years, Son of Raimal Mahato, Resident of Zone No.11, Near Ganesh Mandir, Birsanagar, P.O. and P.S. Birsanagar, Town Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum.

¶5

… … Petitioner

¶6

The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ---

¶7

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶8

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, Advocate For the Informant : Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. Achinto Sen, Advocate ---

¶9

04 /17.03.2026

¶10

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

¶11

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 07.08.2025 in connection with Birsanagar P.S. Case No. 67 of 2025, for the alleged offence registered under Sections 140(1), 103(1), 61(2), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Jamshedpur.

¶12

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the petitioner is named in the First Information Report (F.I.R), but there is only suspicion against the petitioner. There is allegation that the petitioner had illicit relationship with his aunty. He has submitted that the matter has been settled outside court.

¶13

4. Learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer and has denied the plea of the settlement and has further submitted that a sanha was also earlier lodged against the petitioner and he has also submitted that on the confessional statement of the petitioner, the slipper of the deceased and eco-van used in crime have been seized.

¶14

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the petitioner is named in the FIR, though on suspicion and on his confession there is recovery of the belonging of

¶15

¶16

2026:JHHC:7288

¶17

the deceased and also the eco-van allegedly used in the crime, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶18

6. The instant bail application is rejected accordingly.

¶19

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

¶20

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶21