Allowed

Indrajit Kumar @ Indrajit Sahu v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC14 Sept 2026B.A./8515/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought bail in a murder case. High Court balanced guilt and societal harm, considering lack of prior record and witness reliability. Bail granted on security with conditions to cooperate and not contact witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be released on bail on furnishing bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties of the like amount each, conditioned to cooperate with trial, furnish mobile/Aadhaar, and not disturb witn

Indrajit Kumar @ Indrajit Sahu Vs the State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

( 2026:JHHC:27619 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.8515 of 2026

¶2

------

¶3

Indrajit Kumar @ Indrajit Sahu, aged about 48 Years, S/o-Digambar Sahu, R/o Lahna, P.O.-Katu, P.S.-Ratu, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶4

.... .... …. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, Addl.P.P ------

¶7

Order No.02 Dated- 14-09-2026

¶8

Heard the parties.

¶9

The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Ratu P.S. Case No. 185 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under sections 103(1)/3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.

¶10

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 persons has committed murder of Rohit Mirdha. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is next submitted that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and the witness Umashankar Choudhary who is police personnel has stated that the deceased who was of unsound mind outraged the modesty of the wife of the petitioner and when the wife of the petitioner raised hue and cry, the petitioner assaulted the deceased. It is then submitted that Umashankar Choudhary is not an eye witness to the occurrence, he is a hearsay witness and there is no allegation against the petitioner of using any weapon. It is next submitted that assuming the allegation against the petitioner to be true, still it is a case of spontaneous reaction and the petitioner has no intention to kill anyone with any preplanned intention. It is next submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in paragraph no.17 of the bail application. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 04.06.2026, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 16 of

¶11

the bail application. It is next submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the trial of the case and further undertakes that he will not annoy or disturb 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.

¶12

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

¶13

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) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M.F.C., Ranchi, in connection with Ratu P.S. Case No. 185 of 2026 with the condition that the petitioner will cooperate with the trial of the case and will furnish his mobile number and a copy of his Aadhar Card in the court below with the undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the trial of the case, with further condition that he will not annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case .

¶14

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶15

14/09/2026 Abhiraj/

Indrajit Kumar @ Indrajit Sahu v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indrajit Kumar @ Indrajit Sahu v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases