Shyam Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

(2026:JHHC:14303) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 4005 of 2026

Shyam Singh, aged about 30 years, son of Gaya Singh, resident of village – Anugrah Nagar, PO & PS – Dhansar, District – Dhanbad.

¶3

… … …Petitioner

¶4

Versus The State of Jharkhand. … … …Opp. Party ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, Addl. P.P.

¶5

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶6

Order No:- 02, Dated:- 12^th May, 2026

¶7

Heard the parties.

¶8

The petitioner has moved before this Court for grant of bail in connection with Nawalshahi P.S. Case No. 78 of 2025, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 78 of 2026, registered for the offences punishable under sections 103(1) of the B.N.S., 2023.

¶9

The 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 person, namely, Rupak Singh, has committed murder of Kailash Das. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in this case only on the basis of suspicion and confessional statement. It is next submitted that in Para No. 35 of the Case Diary, where the informant has categorically stated that at the time of lodging of the F.I.R., because of the death of his father, his mental condition was like a mad person and he was not in a position to tell or understand anything and without going through the contents of the written report prepared by the Police Officer of the Police Station and without thinking about the same, he put his signature there. It is further submitted that his father was having warm relations with the coaccused, namely, Rupak Singh. Further, there was no quarrel with Rupak Singh and the informant as well as family members. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 12 of the bail

¶10

application. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 02.11.2025, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 14 of the bail application though charge-sheet has already been submitted. It is next submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the trial of the case and further undertakes that he will not annoy or disturb the informant or the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.

¶11

The learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for bail.

¶12

Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am inclined to enlarge the abovenamed petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate – 1^st Class, Koderma , in connection with Nawalshahi P.S. Case No. 78 of 2025, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 78 of 2026 , with the condition that the petitioner will cooperate with the trial of the case and will furnish his mobile number and a copy of his Aadhar Card in the court below with the undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the trial of the case, with further condition that he will not annoy or disturb the informant or the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case.

¶13

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶14

Dated – 12.05.2026 Aditi

Shyam Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jagdish Mahto Vs Santosh Mahto

Sabir Ansari Alias Md. Sabbir Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rakesh Chaudhary Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vishal Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Binod Kumar Ganjhu Vs the State of Jharkhand