The High Court of Jharkhand considered a bail application in a criminal trial concerning death of the petitioner's wife. The trial being at the advance stage and the earlier rejection on merit, the Court rejected the prayer for bail.
The prayer for bail of the petitioner was 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:28048 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8523 of 2026
Kedar Nath Murmu S/o Bolai Murmu, aged about 35 years, residents of Village-Porsa, P.O. Butgora, P.S.-Potka, District-East Singhbhum
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party ---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P. ---
03 /16.09.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with S.T. Case No. 212 of 2025, arising out of Potka P.S. Case No. 88 of 2024, G.R. No. 531 of 2025, for the offences registered under Sections 103(1) & 3(7) of the B.N.S. 2023, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Jamshedpur.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 10.01.2025 in connection with death of his wife in matrimonial home. He submits that bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected in B.A. No. 7669 of 2025 vide order dated 04.11.2025. The petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail primarily on the ground that witnesses who have been examined so far have not fully supported the prosecution case though none of them have been declared hostile. The learned counsel submits that out of 12 witnesses, 08 witnesses have been examined.
4. The learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner, the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail at this stage.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that bail application of the petitioner was rejected earlier on merit and trial is at the advance stage, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected.
( 2026:JHHC:28048 )
6. However, the State is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses are promptly produced before the court.
7. The learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the to the Director, Prosecution, and to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned District to ensure compliance.
8. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through FAX/e-mail.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Dated: 16.09.2026 Uploaded on 17.09.2026
Binit/
2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be enlarged on bail given the trial is at the advance stage and the bail application was previously rejected on merit.
Whether the failure of the prosecution witnesses to fully support the case warrants enlargement on bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kedar Nath Murmu
The State of Jharkhand
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
