Md. Ali Hussain Alias Ali Hussain Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Md. Ali Hussain Alias Ali Hussain Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Admission to bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Dumka, in connection with Hansdiha P.S. Case No.59 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 520 of 2025.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner — accused in Hansdiha P.S. Case No.59 of 2025 / G.R. Case No. 520 of 2025 (offences under S. 309(4) B.N.S., 2023 and S. 27 of the Arms Act; cognizance under Ss. 309(4), 61(2)/3(5) B.N.S., 2023 and S. 27 Arms Act, pending before S.D.J.M., Dumka), unnamed in the F.I.R., allegedly implicated on the basis of co-accuseds' confessional statements, in custody since 23.10.2025, and refused bail below solely on account of criminal antecedent — may be admitted to bail.

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court finds substance in the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's prayer for bail is allowed on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Dumka, in connection with Hansdiha P.S. Case No.59 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 520 of 2025.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular bail granted — B.A. No.833 of 2026, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi — Order dated 26.02.2026 by Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J. — Petitioner made accused in Hansdiha P.S. Case No.59 of 2025 / G.R. Case No. 520 of 2025 (S. 309(4) B.N.S., 2023; S. 27 of the Arms Act; cognizance under Ss. 309(4), 61(2)/3(5) B.N.S., 2023 and S. 27 Arms Act), pending before learned S.D.J.M., Dumka — Petitioner not named in the F.I.R., which was lodged against three unknown persons; alleged implication rests on confessional statements of other co-accused persons; in custody since 23.10.2025 — Bail prayer earlier rejected below only on the ground of criminal antecedent — Held: considering the facts and circumstances, substance found in the petitioner's contentions; prayer for bail allowed on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Dumka.

2026:JHHC:5850

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.833 of 2026

Md. Ali Hussain @ Ali Hussain, aged about 28 years, Son of Md. Usman Miyan, resident of Hansdiha, P.O. & P.S. Hansdiha, Dist.Dumka, Jharkhand. … Petitioner

The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

For the Petitioner : Mr. Durga C. Mishra, Adv. For the State : Ms. Ajay Kr. Pathak, APP

Order No.02/Dated- 26.02.2026

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP.

2. The petitioner has been made an accused in connection with Hansdiha P.S. Case No.59 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 520 of 2025, registered for offences punishable under Section 309(4) of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act and cognizance has been taken under Sections 309(4), 61(2)/3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, which is pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Dumka.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and F.I.R. was lodged against three unknown persons. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has been involved in this case on the basis of confessional statement of other co-accused persons. It was also submitted that petitioner is in custody since 23.10.2025 without any incriminating circumstance appearing against him. It was also submitted that the prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected by the learned court below only on the ground that petitioner is having criminal antecedent. Hence, the petitioner may be admitted to bail.

1 | P a g e

2026:JHHC:5850

5. Learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and has submitted that petitioner is having criminal antecedent.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I find substance in the contentions raised on behalf of petitioner. Therefore, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is allowed on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Dumka in connection with Hansdiha P.S. Case No.59 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 520 of 2025.

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

26.02.2026

Rahul Uploaded on 27/02/2026

2 | P a g e