Dismissed¶21

Talo Marandi v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC9 Jul 2026B.A./5890/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application rejected; Jharkhand High Court; B.A. No. 5890 of 2026; S.T. Case No. 02 of 2026 / Devipur P.S. Case No. 119 of 2025, Deoghar; offences under Sections 103(1), 238(a) BNS and Section 3/4 Prevention of Witch Craft Act; custody since 15.09.2025; charge framed 02.02.2026, one witness examined; alleged throat-slitting, murder weapon recovery from petitioner no. 2's house, confession; parity with released co-accused wives Lalita Tudu and Manodi Besra denied (different footing); directions for prompt witness production and intimation to Director, Prosecution and SP.

What did the court decide?

None (bail refused). Ancillary directions only: prompt production of witnesses before the trial court and communication of the order to the Director, Prosecution and the concerned Superintendent of Police. ¶21

Talo Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, named in the FIR with general allegation, should be enlarged on bail in S.T. Case No. 02 of 2026 (Devipur P.S. Case No. 119 of 2025) notwithstanding the seriousness of the offence and the investigation material against them. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

Considering the materials collected during investigation and the seriousness of the offence, the Court was not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail; the bail application was rejected.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

Parity with co-accused Lalita Tudu and Manodi Besra was rejected: being ladies and wives of the petitioners, their case stands on a different footing; the trial has already commenced.

¶22

Key takeaways

Ancillary direction: the State is to ensure that witnesses are promptly produced before the learned trial court.obiter¶23
Ancillary direction: copy of the order to be communicated to the Director, Prosecution and the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance.obiter¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Jharkhand High Court (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) rejected the bail application (B.A. No. 5890 of 2026, dated 09.07.2026) of Talo Marandi and Rakesh Marandi @ Ramlal Marandi, in custody since 15.09.2025 in S.T. Case No. 02 of 2026 (Devipur P.S. Case No. 119 of 2025) registered under Sections 103(1), 238(a) of BNS and Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Witch Craft Act, pending before the Additional Sessions Judge-IX-cum-Special Judge, Crime Against Women, Deoghar. Charge was framed on 02.02.2026 and one witness examined. Relying on the case-diary, the State contended that the two petitioners slit the victim's throat, that the murder weapon was recovered from the house of petitioner no. 2, and that both confessed guilt. The parity argument based on the earlier release of co-accused Lalita Tudu and Manodi Besra, wives of the petitioners, failed because their case stands on a different footing; the trial had commenced. The Court directed the State to ensure prompt production of witnesses and to communicate the order to the Director, Prosecution and the concerned Superintendent of Police.

¶1

2026:JHHC:20307

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

B.A. No. 5890 of 2026

¶4

Talo Marandi, Son of Ketka @ Ledma Marandi

¶5

Rakesh Marandi @ Ramlal Marandi, Son of Ketka @ Ledma Marandi

¶6

… … Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party

¶9

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶11

--For the Petitioners : Ms. Saman Ahmad, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Ms. Sweta Singh, Advocate

¶12

¶13

03/9^th July 2026

¶14

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with S.T. Case No. 02 of 2026 arising out of Devipur P.S. Case No. 119 of 2025 for the offence registered under Sections 103(1), 238(a) of BNS and Section 3/4 of Prevention of Witch Craft Act, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX-cum-Special Judge, Crime Against Women, Deoghar.

¶15

2. In spite of order dated 30.06.2026, no counter-affidavit has been filed.

¶16

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are named in the FIR, but there is general allegation along with other accused. She has also submitted that the other co-accused, who are similarly situated as that of the petitioners, have been enlarged on bail, namely, Lalita Tudu and Manodi Besra, who are the wives of the present petitioners. The learned counsel has further submitted that the charge has been framed on 02.02.2026 and one witness has been examined. The petitioners are in custody since 15.09.2025.

¶17

4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has referred to the case-diary to submit that during investigation, it has

¶18

¶19

2026:JHHC:20307

¶20

come that it were these two petitioners, who had slit the throat of the victim and the allegations are of serious nature and the murder weapon has been recovered from the house of the petitioner no. 2. Both the petitioners have also confessed their guilt.

¶21

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials collected during investigation and the seriousness of offence involved in this case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. Hence, this bail application is hereby rejected .

¶22

6. So far as the bail granted to the two co-accused, namely, Lalita Tudu and Manodi Besra, are concerned, they are ladies and happens to be the wife of the present petitioners and their case stands on different footing as that of the petitioners. The trial has already commenced.

¶23

7. In the aforesaid circumstances, it would be suffice to direct the State to ensure that the witnesses are promptly produced before the learned court.

¶24

8. 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.

¶25

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

¶26

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶27

Dated: 09.07.2026 Uploaded On: 11.07.2026 Mukul/-

¶28

Talo Marandi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Talo Marandi 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

Lalan Kumar Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kishan Mandal Alias Kishan Kumar Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ajit Turi Vs State of Jharkhand

Guddu Miyan Alias Anul Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sona Bachcha Yadav Alias Sona Prasad Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anil Kumar Mahto Alias Anil Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand