Sara Malto Vs the State of Jharkhand

(2026:JHHC:20514) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 6436 of 2026

Sara Malto, aged about 39 years, wife of Daud Malto, resident of village – Kusumghati, PO – Kusbila, PS – Rajabhitta, District – Godda, Jharkhand. … … …Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand. … … …Opp. Party

¶5

------

¶6

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶7

------ For the Petitioner : Ms. Nirupama, Advocate : Mr. Aashutosh Prasad Deo, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey, Addl. P.P. ------

¶8

Order No:- 02, Dated:- 10^th July, 2026

¶9

Heard the parties.

¶10

The petitioner has moved before this Court for grant of bail in connection with Sundarpahari P.S. Case No. 13 of 2026, registered for the offences punishable under sections 105, 319(2), 318(4), 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.

¶11

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused person has committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder of the wife of the informant by getting her admitted in Sunlife Health Care Hospital, Saraiytola, Bansjori with the greed of taking good commission and in that hospital, because of improper treatment of the wife of the informant, she died after giving birth to a girl child. It is next submitted that the petitioner has no role in commission of the surgery nor the petitioner is associated with the said hospital. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 14 of the bail application. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 09.05.2026, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 15 of the bail application. It is

¶12

next submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the trial of the case and further undertakes that she will not annoy or disturb the informant or the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.

¶13

The learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for bail.

¶14

Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am inclined to enlarge the abovenamed petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Godda , in connection with Sundarpahari P.S. Case No. 13 of 2026 , with the condition that the petitioner will cooperate with the trial of the case and will furnish her mobile number and a copy of her Aadhar Card in the court below with the undertaking that she will not change her mobile number during the trial of the case, with further condition that she will not annoy or disturb the informant or the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case.

¶15

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶16

Dated – 10.07.2026 Aditi

Sara Malto v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sara Malto 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

Quaium Ansari Alias Master Alias MD Kaum Khan Alias Kaum Miyan Alias Kaum Ansari Alias MD Kaum Vs the State of Jharkhand

Amaresh Prakash Vs the State of Jharkhand

Purushottam Kumar Yadav Alias Fakku Alias Purshottm Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Smt. Fulwanti Marandi Vs Jonathan Kisku

Mamta Upadhyay Lal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shiv Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand