High Court at Ranchi granted bail to the petitioner accused in a serious offence under BNS 2023, directing him to furnish a bond and sureties, cooperate in the trial, and not disturb witnesses while he was already in custody.
Release of petitioner on bail with sureties and conditions to cooperate in trial and not annoy witnesses.
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:27850] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.3045 of 2026
------
Kolesh Hansda, aged about 23 years, Son of Hopna Hansda, Resident of Village- Kolabari, P.O.- Maheshpur, P.S.- Maheshpur, District- Pakur, Jharkhand .... .... …. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opposite Party
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pratik Sen, Advocate Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, Addl.P.P ------
Order No.03 Dated-15-09-2026
Heard the parties.
The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Littipara P.S. Case No.52 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. No.967 of 2025 (S.T. Case No.17 of 2026) registered for the offences punishable under Section 115(2), 118(1), 132, 121(2), 109(1), 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner, in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused Manjit Murmu, attempted to murder the police personnel namely Vinay Kumar and Gour Chandra Das. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that five out of nine witnesses have already been examined including the alleged victim Gour Chandra Das but he has not stated anything to implicate the petitioner in this case rather he has categorically stated that it is Manjit Murmu and one of his associates, who assaulted him and Vinay Kumar. It is further submitted that though the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. yet without putting him on Test Identification Parade as has been mentioned in paragraph-11 of the
instant bail application, charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner. 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 witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 29.10.2025 as has been mentioned in para-14 of the instant bail application. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail.
Learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for bail.
Considering the facts of this case, 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, Pakur in connection with Littipara P.S. Case No.52 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. No.967 of 2025 (S.T. Case No.17 of 2026) 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 witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
Dated-15.09.2026-Animesh/
Kolesh Hansda
The State of Jharkhand
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
