Deepak Ram @ Deepak Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2026)

Deepak Ram @ Deepak Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Enlargement on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty-Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latehar, subject to five conditions (pairvikar bailor; close-relative bailor; attendance on each and every date with bail-bond cancellation on single default; deposit of self-attested Aadhaar Card copy and mobile number not to change without prior permission; full co-operation with court-below proceedings). Copy of order and bail-petition affidavit to be communicated to the court concerned through email/FAX.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, in custody since 24.06.2025 with charge already framed in S.T. Case No. 255/2025 (Latehar P.S. Case No. 96/2025), should be enlarged on bail during trial.

Court's answer

The Court directed that the petitioner be enlarged on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latehar, in connection with Latehar P.S. Case No. 96/2025.

Ratio / Principle

Bail was granted subject to conditions, including that the petitioner attend court on every date, with a single default resulting in cancellation of the bail bond; further conditions: one bailor to be his present pairvikar, the other a close relative, deposit of self-attested Aadhaar copy and mobile number not to be changed without permission, and full co-operation with proceedings.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail Application No. 3645 of 2026, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.), decided 15.06.2026 — Allowed. Petitioner Deepak Ram @ Deepak Kumar, in custody since 24.06.2025 in S.T. Case No. 255/2025 arising out of Latehar P.S. Case No. 96/2025 for offences registered under Sections 103(1), 238(a), 3(5) of BNS, with charge framed under Section 108 of BNS on 06.12.2025 and case pending before learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latehar, was enlarged on bail on a bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each. Conditions: one bailor to be the petitioner's present pairvikar, the other a close relative; attendance on each and every court date with cancellation of the bail bond on a single default; deposit of self-attested Aadhaar Card copy and mobile number (not to be changed without prior permission); and full co-operation with the proceedings before the court below. Counsel for the petitioner highlighted (and the opposite party did not dispute) the absence of any eye-witness, non-support by the victim's son, and absence of neighbourhood allegations of matrimonial discord.

2026:JHHC:17188

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

B.A. No. 3645 of 2026

Deepak Ram @ Deepak Kumar, Son of Harilal Ram … Petitioner Versus

The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, Advocate ---

03/15^th June 2026

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with S.T. Case No. 255/2025 arising out of Latehar P.S. Case No. 96/2025 for the offence registered under Sections 103(1), 238(a), 3(5) of BNS and charge has been framed under Section 108 of BNS, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latehar.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 24.06.2025 and charge has been framed on 06.12.2025. The learned counsel submits that the marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and the victim way back in the year 2013 and the incident is of the year 2025. He submits that as per the FIR, there is an allegation that the petitioner, being the husband of the victim, had killed the victim by suffocating her with a pillow and thereafter threw her body in well. The learned counsel submits that there is no eye-witness to the occurrence and the son of the victim has not supported the prosecution case. The learned counsel has also submitted that the witnesses in the neighborhood have also not made any allegation with regard to any matrimonial discord.

3. The learned counsel for the opposite party has opposed the prayer for bail, but does not dispute the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

1

2026:JHHC:17188

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the charge has already been framed and the petitioner is in custody since 24.06.2025, the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty-Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latehar in connection with Latehar P.S. Case No. 96/2025, subject to the following conditions: -

(i) One of the bailors would be the present pairvikar of the petitioner.

(ii) The other bailor should be his close relative.

(iii) The petitioner will attend the court on each and every date and on account of his single default, the learned court shall cancel the bail bond furnished by the petitioner.

(iv) The petitioner would deposit a self-attested copy of his Aadhar Card along with his Mobile Number before the learned court below, which he shall not change during the pendency of the case without prior permission of the court.

(v) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the proceedings before the learned court below.

5. The instant bail application is allowed with the aforesaid conditions.

6. Let a copy of this order along with a copy of the affidavit filed with the bail petition be communicated to the court concerned through ‘email/FAX’.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

Dated: 15.06.2026 Uploaded On: Mukul/-

2