Dismissed

Mundrika Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC16 Sept 2026A.B.A./4147/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed five anticipatory bail applications arising from a single FIR (Chainpur P.S. Case No. 124 of 2026) registered under multiple sections of the BNS, 2023 and the Arms Act. The petitioners, including elderly individuals, were accused of demolishing a house, making threats, and involvement in firing that caused a death. The court found serious allegations supported by witness statements and case diary entries indicating misuse of licensed weapons and land mafia activities, and declined to grant anticipatory bail.

What did the court decide?

All anticipatory bail applications dismissed; interim orders vacated.

Mundrika Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

 ( 2026:JHHC:27936 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 4147 of 2026

¶3

Mundrika Singh, aged about 72 years, son of Ramadhar Singh, resident of village-Rampur, P.O. and P.S. Rampur, District-Palamau

¶4

...... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .…. … Opposite Party With

¶5

A.B.A. No.4245 of 2026

¶6

Dilip Kumar Singh, aged about 59 years, son of late Shyama Singh, resident of village Rampur, P.O. Katual, P.S. Chainpur, District-Palamau

¶7

...... … Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Jharkhand .…. … Opposite Party

¶10

With

¶11

A.B.A. No.4305 of 2026

¶12

Umakant Singh, aged about 70 years, son of late Basri Singh, resident of village-Ramur, P.O-Katuwal, P.S. Chainpur, District-Palamau, Jharkhand

¶13

...... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .…. … Opposite Party

¶14

With

¶15

A.B.A. No. 4416 of 2016

¶16

Rajendra Singh @ Rajendra Prasad Singh, aged about 80 years, son of late Mahavir Singh

¶17

Ram Swarup Singh, aged abut 68 years, son of late Baikunth Narayan Singh

¶18

Mantu Singh @ Abhimanyu Kumar Singh, aged about 53 years, son of Nandlal Singh

¶19

All residents of village-Rampur, P.O. Katuwal, P.S. Chainpur, DistrictPalamau

¶20

...... … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .…. … Opposite Party

¶21

With

¶22

A.B.A. No.4970 of 2026

¶23

Bagan Singh @ Bhishm Narayan Singh, aged about 41 years, son of late Lalmani Singh @ late Lalmuni Singh, resident of village-Rampur, P.O. Katual, P.S. Chainpur, District-Palamau, Jharkhand-822110

¶24

...... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .…. … Opposite Party

¶25

¶26

 ( 2026:JHHC:27936 )

¶27

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners :Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate (in A.B.A. Nos. 4147, 4245 and 4305 of 2026) : Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Sr. Advocate (In A.B.A. No. 4416/2026) : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate (in A.B.A. No. 4970/2026) For the State : Mr. Subodh Kr. Dubey, A.P.P. (in A.B.A. No. 4147/2026) : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, A.P.P. (in A.B.A. No. 4245/2026) : Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P. ( in A.B.A. No. 4305/2026) : Mr. Sudhir Kr. Mahto, A.P.P. (in A.B.A. No. 4416/2026) : Mr. Achinto Sen, A.P.P. (in A.B.A. No. 4970/2026) For the Informant : Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, Advocate

¶29

03/ 16.09.2026 : All the anticipatory bail applications are arising out of same F.I.R, hence all these petitions are being heard together with the consent of the parties.

¶30

Heard Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned counsel, Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, learned senior counsel and Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners in respective A.B.A, learned counsels for the State in respective cases and Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant in all the cases.

¶31

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Chainpur P.S. Case No. 124 of 2026, registered under sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 117(2), 118(1), 118(2), 333, 103(1), 109, 303(2), 75, 351(2), 352 of BNS, 2023 and section 27 (1) of Arms Act pending in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj. 4. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in respective cases submits that the land in question belongs to ancestors of the petitioners’ family and the plot nos. 112 and 113 in dispute and the said

¶32

¶33

 ( 2026:JHHC:27936 )

¶34

plot is inherited by the petitioners and other co-accused through his ancestors and to buttress this argument he refers to Form-M contained in Annexure-2 and further submits that the name of the ancestor of the petitioners are there. He next submits that false allegations have been made against the petitioners and F.I.R is in two parts. He next submits that it is an admitted position that second part of occurrence has occurred at 10 A.M and firing has been made and pursuant to that deceased has died and these petitioners were not present at the spot. He further submits that petitioner-Mundrika Singh and petitioner-Umakant Singh are aged about 72 and 70 years respectively. He next submits that petitioners have got no criminal antecedent. On these grounds, he submits that the petitioner may kindly be provided privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶35

Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in A.B.A.No.4416 of 2026 adopts the argument of Mr. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in respective cases with regard to two parts of F.I.R and further adds that these petitioners are aged and by way of Annexure-2 in the year, 2025 itself the petitioners have made a written complaint before the district administration stating therein the informant side are trying to grab the land of the petitioners. He also submits that the petitioners have got no criminal antecedent. On these grounds, he submits that the petitioner may kindly be provided privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶36

Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner in A.B.A.No.4970 of 2026 also adopts the argument of Mr. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in respective cases with regard to two parts of F.I.R and further submits that although the allegations are there in the

¶37

¶38

 ( 2026:JHHC:27936 )

¶39

statement of the informant that several rounds firing has been made however one khokha was recovered from the place of occurrence. He next submits that allegations are made against the petitioner of firing however, firing was made by one Badal Singh and pursuant to his shot the son of the informant has died and the said Badal Singh has been arrested. He next submits that petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. On these grounds, he submits that the petitioner may kindly be provided privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶40

Learned counsels for the State in respective cases vehemently oppose the prayer and submit that serious allegations are there and five persons have received injury and even the ladies have not been speared and molestation has been done. Learned counsels for the State further draw the attention of the Court to para 9 and 19 of the case diary and submit that witnesses have stated that these petitioners are land mafias and in para 51 of the case diary it has come that the accused persons have mis-utilized the licencee weapons. They further submit that petitioners are not complying notice under section 35(3) of BNSS, 2023. On these grounds, they submit that the anticipatory bail of the petitioner may kindly be rejected.

¶41

Learned counsel for the informant in all the cases further adds that the contents of F.I.R cannot be segregated as in the first part itself the half constructed house of a widow has been demolished and that has led to the second part of the occurrence. He next submits that chargesheet has been submitted against apprehended co-accused persons and these petitioners are not cooperating in the investigation and in view of that the investigation is still going on. He submits that anticipatory bail of the petitioners may kindly be rejected.

¶42

¶43

 ( 2026:JHHC:27936 )

¶44

In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of F.I.R, it transpires that informant has stated that at 6.45 A.M. near the house of informant relating to khata no. 235, plot no. 09 construction was going on and in the meantime Mantu Singh, Rajendra Singh, Munarik Singh, Brahmdev Singh, Umakant Singh, Badan Singh, Chandan Singh, Badal Singh, Golu Singh, Manish Singh, Dilip Singh, Lalan Singh, Kundan Singh, Jayram Singh, Ramswarup Singh, Mantu Singh came there along with 25 other persons armed with rod, khanti, Sabal, Kudal and demolished the house. It is further alleged that the they have threatened that if any brick is kept on the wall the informant will be murdered. It is also alleged that at 10 A.M. when scattered bricks were being collected then these accused persons have again appeared and alleged several round firing has been made. It further transpires that pursuant to firing made by one Badal Singh the son of the informant has died. In paras 9 and 19 the witnesses have stated that these petitioners are land mafias. In para 51 of the case diary licencee weapons have been disclosed and prima facie it transpires that licencee weapons have been mis-utilized in the said crime. All these petitioners are named in F.I.R. In paras 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the case diary injured witnesses statement has been recorded and they all have supported the case of prosecution and have taken the name of these petitioners. In page 22 of the case diary an independent witness has been examined and he has also supported the case of prosecution. Serious allegations are there against the petitioners of creating hooliganism and taking law and order in their hands. 10. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, their prayer

¶45

¶46

 ( 2026:JHHC:27936 )

¶47

of anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. Interim orders passed in respective cases are vacated. All these anticipatory bail applications are dismissed.

¶48

Dt.16.09.2026 ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶49

satyarthi-

¶50

Mundrika Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mundrika Singh 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