Sumit Tana Bhagat Vs the State of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2026)

Sumit Tana Bhagat Vs the State of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief: bail refused and the bail application rejected. Ancillary directions: State to ensure prompt production of remaining witnesses/materials before the trial court; learned counsel for the State to communicate a copy of the order to the Director, Prosecution and the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance; copy of the order to be communicated to the court concerned through 'e-mail/FAX'.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, in custody since 18.10.2024 in S.T. Case No. 63 of 2025 (offences under S.103(1) BNS and S.27 Arms Act), should be enlarged on bail notwithstanding his numerous criminal antecedents and his status as a named accused in the FIR, given that only two of seven trial witnesses had been examined. +1 more

Court's answer

Considering the petitioner's numerous criminal antecedents and that he is a named accused in the FIR, the Court was not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail; the bail application was rejected.

Ratio / Principle

There could be no reason for the State not to produce the remaining trial witnesses; the State was directed to ensure prompt production of the witnesses/materials collected during investigation before the learned court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail rejected – criminal antecedents and named-accused status outweigh slow-trial grievance (Jharkhand HC, 03.07.2026, Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.). Sumit Tana Bhagat, in custody since 18.10.2024 in S.T. Case No. 63 of 2025 (Piparwar P.S. Case No. 32 of 2024; G.R. No. 57 of 2025) under S.103(1) BNS and S.27 Arms Act pending before Addl. Sessions Judge-III, Chatra, sought bail (B.A. No. 5567 of 2026, filed 08.05.2026) after withdrawing B.A. No. 8804 of 2025 on 19.02.2026. Despite only two of seven witnesses having been examined (order dt. 23.04.2026), and although the petitioner claimed bail in all his earlier cases, the Court noted his numerous criminal antecedents and that he is a named accused in the FIR, and rejected bail; the State had cited five criminal cases (Arms Act, S.17 C.L.A. Act) and recovery of the arm on his confessional statement. The State was directed to ensure prompt production of the remaining witnesses/materials, with copies to the Director, Prosecution and the concerned Superintendent of Police, and the order was to be conveyed to the trial court through 'e-mail/FAX'.

2026:JHHC:19491

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

B.A. No. 5567 of 2026

Sumit Tana Bhagat, Son of Rajkumar Tana Bhagat

Versus

The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Sahil, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate ---

04/3^rd July 2026

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with S.T. Case No. 63 of 2025 arising out of Piparwar P.S. Case No. 32 of 2024, corresponding to G.R. No. 57 of 2025 for the offence registered under Section 103(1) of BNS and Section 27 of Arms Act, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Chatra.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 18.10.2024 and earlier the bail application of the petitioner was withdrawn on 19.02.2026 in B.A. No. 8804 of 2025 and this bail application has been again filed on 08.05.2026. The learned counsel submits that out of seven witnesses, only two have been examined as is apparent from the impugned order dated 23.04.2026. The learned counsel submits that though the petitioner has a number of criminal antecedents, but the petitioner has been granted bail in all the cases. The learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner has been made an accused merely on the basis of suspicion, as it is alleged in the FIR that the informant found his son with blood oozing from his neck, and one Mantosh Tana Bhagat allegedly saw the petitioner running away from the place of occurrence. It is further alleged that the petitioner had killed the informant's son by shooting him.

1

2026:JHHC:19491

3. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there are five criminal cases including the present one registered against the petitioner and most of them are registered under the provisions of Arms Act and Section 17 of C.L.A. Act. The learned counsel has also submitted that the arm used for the commission of offence has also been recovered on the confessional statement of the petitioner.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and the considering the fact that the petitioner has numerous criminal antecedents and that the petitioner is named accused in the FIR, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is hereby rejected .

5. However, there can be no reason on the part of the State not to produce the remaining witnesses before the learned Court.

6. The State is directed to ensure prompt production of the witnesses/materials collected during investigation before the learned court.

7. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Director, Prosecution as well as Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance.

8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

Dated: 03.07.2026 Uploaded On: 04.07.2026 Mukul/-

2