Dismissed

Naim Miyan v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC15 Sept 2026A.B.A./4145/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge judgment of the High Court of Jharkhand addressed an application for anticipatory bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner, the father of the deceased, alleged the victim committed suicide due to false torture allegations. The court rejected the application, relying on a note allegedly written by the deceased on a chit and witness testimony corroborating claims of torture by the petitioner and his relatives. The prayer for anticipatory bail was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for anticipatory bail rejected and A.B.A. No.4145 of 2026 dismissed.

Naim Miyan Vs the State of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

2026:JHHC:27814

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶3

----

¶4

A.B.A. No. 4145 of 2026

¶5

----

¶6

Naim Miyan, aged about 74 years, son of Abdul Rajak, present resident of at Village Itki Thakurgaon, PO and PS Itki, Thakurgaon, District Ranchi, Jharkhand, permanent resident of at Village Hethpochra, PO and PS Latehar, District Latehar, Jharkhand .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party

¶7

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶9

--For the Petitioner :- Mr. Pawan Kumar Pathak, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, Advocate ----

¶10

/15.09.2026 Heard learned counsels for petitioner and for State.

¶11

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Latehar P.S. Case No.57 of 2026, correspondent to G.R. Case No.469 of 2026, for offence registered under section 108, 3(5) of BNS, 2023, pending in court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar.

¶12

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner happened to be father of the deceased and the deceased has committed suicide. He next submits that the petitioner has nothing to do with the said allegation, however, false allegations are made that the petitioner used to torture the deceased. He next submits that the petitioner is residing at Ranchi whereas the deceased has

¶13

¶14

2026:JHHC:27814

¶15

committed suicide in Latehar and on these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted.

¶16

Learned State counsel opposes prayer and submits that even a chit of paper was recovered from the body of the deceased wherein he has stated that this petitioner and two brothers used to torture the deceased.

¶17

Although, the petitioner happened to be father of the deceased, however, the allegations are there of torture against the petitioner as well as the elder brothers of the deceased. Even one Wasim Ansari, who is aged about 18 years and happened to be grand-son of this petitioner, has stated that this petitioner and his uncles used to torture the deceased and that fact has also been stated in writing by the deceased and that has come in the statement of the said Wasim Ansari under section 180 of BNSS, 2023 and that is part of the case diary and in paragraph no.32 of the case diary, similar thing has been repeated by the wife of the deceased, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶18

As such, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is, hereby, rejected, and consequently, A.B.A. No.4145 of 2026 is, hereby, dismissed.

¶19

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶20

15.09.2026 SI/

¶21

Naim Miyan v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naim Miyan v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases