Allowed

Sonu Kumar Mandal v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC16 Sept 2026B.A./8628/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application filed by an accused charged with murder and attempt to murder under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023. Petitioner sought bail alleging false implications based on a recovered smartphone. The court granted bail with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties of the like amount, subject to specified conditions.

Sonu Kumar Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

[ 2026:JHHC:27896 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.8628 of 2026

¶3

------

¶4

Sonu Kumar Mandal, aged 22 years, S/o Late Nandlal Mandal, Resident of Village- Mahubana P.O. + P.S.- Ramgarh, District- Dumka.

¶5

.... .... …. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

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

¶8

-----CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, Addl.P.P. ------

¶9

Order No:-02 Dated:-16-09-2026

¶10

Heard the parties.

¶11

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 06 of 2026 (S.T. No. 174 of 2026) registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.

¶12

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, committed murder of Lakhindra Soren by assaulting him and attempted to murder two other victims namely Sunita Hembrom and David. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is then submitted that even though petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. yet without putting him on T.I.P., charge-sheet has already been submitted as mentioned in para-12 of the instant bail application and charges has also been framed as mentioned in para 17 of the instant bail application. It is next submitted that the petitioner has only been implicated in this case only the basis of the recovery of smartphone of the injured Sunita Hembrom from the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 29.01.2026 as mentioned in para-15 of the instant bail application. It is further submitted that the co-accused person with similar allegations has already been admitted to bail by this Court vide order dated 02.09.2026 in B.A. No. 8139 of 2026. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the trial of the case and also undertakes not to annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in

¶13

any manner during the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

¶15

Considering the facts of this case, the above-named petitioner is directed to be enlarged 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 the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Dumka in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 06 of 2026 (S.T. No. 174 of 2026) with the condition that he will co-operate with the trial of the case and furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card in the court below with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the trial of the case and 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

Dated:- 16.09.2026 Amar/

Sonu Kumar Mandal v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Kumar Mandal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases