The High Court of Jharkhand rejected the petitioner's bail application in a murder-culpable homicide case. The court declined bail due to the serious nature of the allegations and the possibility of the petitioner absconding or tampering with evidence.
The prayer for bail of the petitioner is 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:27762 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.8548 of 2026
------
Puran Kumar Dutta, aged about 34 years, S/o Late Lakhan Chandra Dutta, R/o-Renuni Basti, Shramik Nagar Bhuli, P.O.-Shramik Nagar & P.S.-Katras (East Basuria O.P.), District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
.... .... …. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Jai Mohan Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Amrita Kumari, Addl.P.P
Order No.02 Dated- 15-09-2026
Heard the parties.
The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with S.T. Case No.155 of 2025 arising out of Katras (East Basuria O.P.) P.S. Case No.335 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under sections 103(1), 85 & 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.
This is the third journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail, earlier the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 21.08.2025 in B.A. No.4867 of 2025 and dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 03.08.2026 in B.A.(Filing) No.8643 of 2026.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only fresh ground is that in the meanwhile, 05 witnesses have been examined in this case and all of them have supported the case of the prosecution, but there is some contradiction in cross-examination of PW-05. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 25.11.2024, as has been mentioned in paragraph no.15 of the bail application. It is lastly 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.
Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand
vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that keeping in view the direct allegation of serious nature against the petitioner, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail more so, because overwhelming evidence has already come in the record to bring home the charge against him through the 05 witnesses examined in this case, hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not be released on bail.
Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner as well as the chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail and the evidence that has already come against the petitioner through the PW-01 to 05, this Court is not inclined to admit the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
15/09/2026 Abhiraj/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be admitted to bail in a case involving serious allegations of murder and culpable homicide.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Puran Kumar Dutta
The State of Jharkhand
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
