Partly allowed

Karim Miyan @ Karim Ansari v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC15 Sept 2026B.A./8581/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Ranchi heard an application for bail in aغت trial case involving murder and attempted murder. The court rejected bail for the first accused due to serious allegations but granted bail for the second, elder accused.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for bail of petitioner no.1 rejected; petitioner no.2 directed to be released on bail on furnishing bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties.

Karim Miyan @ Karim Ansari Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

( 2026:JHHC:27867 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8581 of 2026

¶2

Karim Miyan @ Karim Ansari, Aged about 24 years, Son of Jalil Ansari

¶3

Siddik Ansari @ Siddik Mian, Aged about 73 years, Son of Late Rustam Miyan Both are reisdents of Village –Shimla, P.O. –Shikaripara, Police Station –Shikaripara, District –Dumka (Jharkhand).

¶4

… Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶8

For the Petitioners : Mr. Indu Shekhar Gupta, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Sushma Aind, Addl. P.P.

¶9

------

¶10

Order No.02 Dated- 15.09.2026

¶11

Heard the parties.

¶12

The petitioners have moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with S.T. Case No. 215 of 2026 arising out of Shikaripara P.S. Case No.02 of 2026 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 486 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under sections 191(2), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 109, 351(3) & 352 of the B.N.S., 2023.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners were the members of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of the assembly, committed the murder of Safruddin Miyan and attempted to murder Bulsum Bibi. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are all false. It is then submitted that in the re-statement of the informant, the informant stated that the petitioner no.1 assaulted on the head of Safruddin Mian which ultimately led to his death. It is then submitted that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in para –19 of the bail application. It is next submitted that the petitioner no.1 has been in custody since 07.04.2026 and the petitioner no.2 has been in custody since

¶14

13.05.2026, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 21 of the bail application. It is then submitted that because of land dispute, the petitioners have been implicated in this case. It is next submitted that the petitioner no.2 is an old person. It is also submitted that the co-accused persons have already been admitted to bail by this Court vide order dated 09.07.2026 in B.A. No. 5951 of 2026. It is further 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 any manner during the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be admitted to bail.

¶15

The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that in view of direct allegation against the petitioner no.1 of committing murder of the deceased Safruddin Miyan, there is every chance of the petitioners absconding and tampering with the evidence, if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners ought not to be admitted to bail.

¶16

Considering the direct allegation of serious nature against the petitioner no.1 –Karim Miyan @ Karim Ansari and the chance of his absconding and tampering with the evidence, if released on bail, this Court is not inclined to admit the petitioner no.1 –Karim Miyan @ Karim Ansari on bail.

¶17

Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner no.1 – Karim Miyan @ Karim Ansari is rejected.

¶18

So far as the petitioner no.2 –Siddik Ansari @ Siddik Mian is concerned, in the absence of any specific allegation of direct nature against the petitioner no.2 and that fact that he is an old person aged about 73 years, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the petitioner no.2 –Siddik Ansari @ Siddik Mian being accused in connection with S.T. Case No. 215 of 2026 arising out of Shikaripara P.S. Case No.02 of 2026 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 486 of 2026 be enlarged on bail.

¶19

Accordingly, the petitioner no.2 –Siddik Ansari @ Siddik Mian is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of

¶20

Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Dumka, in connection with S.T. Case No. 215 of 2026 arising out of Shikaripara P.S. Case No.02 of 2026 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 486 of 2026 with the condition that the petitioner no.2 will co-operate with the trial of the case and will furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an 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.

¶21

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶22

15.09.2026 Sonu/

Karim Miyan @ Karim Ansari v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karim Miyan @ Karim Ansari 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