Dismissed¶16

Md. Ansur Ansari v. the State Ofjharkhand

Jharkhand HC7 Jul 2026B.A./6240/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi; B.A. No. 6240 of 2026; decided 07.07.2026 by Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.; bail application rejected under Section 302/34 IPC (murder with common intention); accused alleged to have murdered sister-in-law in matrimonial home; custody since 23.03.2024; earlier bail rejected 12.11.2025 (B.A. No. 7827/2025); 9 of 13 charge-sheet witnesses examined, last on 19.02.2026; directions to State for prompt production of remaining witnesses and FSL report; communication to Director Prosecution, concerned SP and SFSL Ranchi.

What did the court decide?

In view of the serious allegation that the petitioner murdered his sister-in-law in the matrimonial home, the Court was not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail; the bail application was rejected. ¶14

Md. Ansur Ansari Vs the State Ofjharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

2026:JHHC:19866

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

B.A. No. 6240 of 2026

¶4

Md. Ansur Ansari, Son of Suddin Mian @ Samsudin Miyan

¶5

… … Petitioner Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party

¶7

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶9

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Md. Imran Ansari, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Fahad Alam, Advocate ---

¶10

03/7^th July 2026

¶11

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 55 of 2024 for the offence registered under Section 302/34 of IPC, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Giridih in S.T. No. 304/2024.

¶12

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected earlier on 12.11.2025 in B.A. No. 7827/2025 and the petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail on account of custody of the petitioner since 23.03.2024.

¶13

3. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected on merits earlier and the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail. The learned counsel submits that out of 13 charge-sheet witnesses, 9 have been examined as is apparent from paragraph 17 of the bail application. 4. To which, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the last witness in the case was examined on 19.02.2026 and thereafter no witness has been produced.

¶14

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that there is serious allegation made against the petitioner, who is said to have murdered his sister-in-law in matrimonial home, this Court is not 1

¶15

2026:JHHC:19866

¶16

inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is hereby rejected .

¶17

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

¶18

7. The records also reveal that the sample was sent for forensic examination.

¶19

8. The State is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses are promptly produced and the report from FSL is also produced before the concerned court.

¶20

9. 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 and also to SFSL Ranchi to ensure compliance. 10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’.

¶21

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶22

Dated: 07.07.2026 Uploaded On: 07.07.2026 Mukul/-

¶23

Md. Ansur Ansari v. the State Ofjharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Ansur Ansari v. the State Ofjharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhimanyu Kumar Mandal Vs State of Jharkhand

Amresh Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kunti Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manoj Puran Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashik Ansari Alias Ashif Ansari Alias Asif Ansari Alias Ashique Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Tata Steel Limited through Its Principal Legal Namely Rajesh Kumar Jha Vs State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary Deptt of Labour