The High Court at Ranchi dismissed a bail application filed under Sections 483 & 484 of BNSS, 2023. The petitioner argued lack of direct evidence, but the court noted specific allegations of taking the victim to the forest and prior rejections. Trial is expected to conclude in three months.
The petition for bail is dismissed and stands rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2026:JHHC:27373
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.7977 of 2026
Irfan Ansari, son of Aslam Ansari, resident of near BSNL Tower, village Sikitia, VTC Pindra, P.O and P.S Budhai (Jagdishpur), sub district Madhupur and District Deoghar. … Petitioner(s).
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party(s).
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. -----For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prakash Kumar Sahay, Advocate For the State : Mr. Azeemuddin, APP
2. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and have also gone through the impugned order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no direct evidence against the petitioner and he made accused merely on suspicion.
4. Learned APP opposes the prayer for bail.
5. The bail applications of this petitioner were twice rejected.
6. There is specific allegation against this petitioner that he had taken the deceased in a motorcycle towards the forest and soon thereafter the husband of the informant was found in injured condition in the forest area. He was taken to hospital where he succumbed to injuries. The proximity of time from the last seen and the recovery of husband of the informant found in injured condition, is not much. Witnesses examined in the Court have deposed that they have seen the petitioner taking the
1
2026:JHHC:27373
deceased with him towards the forest. Thus, I am not inclined to reconsider the bail application to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for bail application of the petitioner in connection with Budhai PS Case No. 84 of 2024 corresponding to ST Case No. 151 of 2025, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Madhupur stands rejected.
8. Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed .
9. It is brought on record through counter-affidavit dated 08.09.2026 that out of 11 charge-sheet witnesses, 7 witnesses have already been examined and only 4 charge-sheet witnesses have remained to be examined.
10. It is expected that the trial be concluded preferably within a period of three months.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
11.09.2026 Tanuj/CP-2
Uploaded on 11.09.2026
2
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner who is accused of an offence under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Whether the fact that only four charge-sheet witnesses remain and trial is expected to conclude within three months is a sufficient ground to reconsider the bails already rejected twice.
Whether the proximity of the accused taking the deceased to the forest followed by the deceased appearing injured and succumbing to injuries warrants granting bail.
Irfan Ansari
The State of Jharkhand
Ananda Sen
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
