Allowed

Gomeya Soy v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC15 Sept 2026B.A./8554/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under sections 103(1), 238(a), and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 for alleged murder, the High Court of Jharkhand allowed the petitioner's prayer. Noted absence of other evidence besides a co-accused confession, lack of criminal antecedents, and no witnesses examined, the court directed release subject to sureties and conditions regarding cooperation and witness protection.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner admitted to bail on Rs. 25,000 bond with two like sureties; conditions: cooperate with trial, furnish mobile number/Aadhar, do not disturb witnesses.

Gomeya Soy Vs State of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

( 2026:JHHC:27767 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.8554 of 2026

¶2

------

¶3

Gomeya Soy, aged about 44 years, S/o Moso Soy, R/o Vill-Kitahatu, P.O. & P.S.-Saiko, District-Khunti.

¶4

.... .... …. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

------

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate For the State : Ms. Mohua Palit, Addl.P.P ------

¶9

Order No.02 Dated- 15-09-2026

¶10

Heard the parties.

¶11

The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Saiko P.S. Case No.08 of 2026 corresponding to G.R. Case No.319 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under sections 103(1)/238(a)/ 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.

¶12

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 Vishu Pahan and Sumi Mundu and threw their dead bodies to screen himself and the co-accused from the offence of murder. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is next submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and he has been implicated in this case only on the basis of the confessional statement of the co-accused Sumber Singh Manki. It is then submitted that except the confessional statement, there is no other material in the record to implicate the petitioner in this case. It is further submitted that though charge has been framed, but no witness has been examined in this case as yet. It is next submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in paragraph no.09 of the bail application. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 27.05.2026, as has been mentioned in paragraph no.05 of the bail application. It is next submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the trial of the case and

¶13

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.

¶14

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

¶15

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 Sessions Judge, Khunti in connection with Saiko P.S. Case No.08 of 2026 corresponding to G.R. Case No.319 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 .

¶16

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶17

15/09/2026 Abhiraj/

Gomeya Soy v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gomeya Soy v. 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