Allowed

Sandip Saw @ Sandeep Kumar Saw v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC15 Sept 2026B.A./8551/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of the High Court of Jharkhand granted bail to two petitioners accused of attempted murder, theft, and other offences. Petitioners were directed to furnish a bail bond and execute an undertaking regarding trial cooperation and witness protection.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- each with two sureties of like amount.

Sandip Saw @ Sandeep Kumar Saw Vs the State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

( 2026:JHHC:27763 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.8551 of 2026

¶2

------

¶3

Sandip Saw @ Sandeep Kumar Saw, aged about 28 years, S/o Hiralal Saw,

¶4

Sumit Saw @ Sumit Kumar, aged about 21 years, S/o Damodar Saw,

¶5

Both resident of Village-Rangamati, P.O. + P.S.-Nimiyaghat, District-Giridih(T), District-Giridih.

¶6

.... .... …. Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party

¶9

-----CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶10

------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Vijay Kr. Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Praful Jojo, Addl.P.P

¶11

Order No.02 Dated- 15-09-2026

¶12

Heard the parties.

¶13

The petitioners have moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Nimiyaghat P.S. Case No.60 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 303(2) & 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons attempted to commit murder of the informant and his brother and snatched away the gold chain and cash of Rs.25,000/-. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are all false. It is then submitted that there is no material in the record to suggest any grievous injury being caused to the alleged victim and there is delay in lodging the FIR. It is next submitted that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in paragraph no.15 of this bail application. It is then submitted that the petitioners have been in custody since 15.07.2026, as has been mentioned in paragraph no.05 of the bail application. It is lastly submitted that the petitioners undertake to cooperate with the trial of the case and further undertake that they will not annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in

¶15

any manner during the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be admitted to bail.

¶16

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

¶17

Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am inclined to enlarge the abovenamed petitioners on bail. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned JM-1^st Class, Giridih in connection with Nimiyaghat P.S. Case No.60 of 2026 with the condition that the petitioners will cooperate with the trial of the case and will furnish their mobile numbers and a copy of their Aadhar Cards in the court below with the undertaking that they will not change their mobile numbers during the trial of the case, with further condition that they will not annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case .

¶18

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶19

15/09/2026 Abhiraj/

Sandip Saw @ Sandeep Kumar Saw v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandip Saw @ Sandeep Kumar Saw 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases