Dismissed

Sahjan Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC17 Sept 2026B.A./8694/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Jharkhand High Court rejected a bail application in a murder case under Section 103/3(5) of BNS, 2023. The petitioner, in custody since April 2025, had no criminal record and witnesses PW1 and PW4 were not eye-witnesses. However, the court found the seriousness of the allegation and the risk of evidence tampering and absconding warranted refusal of bail at this stage.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sahjan Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

[ 2026:JHHC:28213 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8694 of 2026

¶3

Sahjan Ansari, S/o Kayum Ansari @ Karyum Ansari, age-30 years R/o vill- Hirhi, P.O & P.S.Lohardaga, Dist-Lohardaga … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party

¶4

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶5

For the Petitioner : Mr. Altamash Khan, Adv. For the State : Mr. Someshwar Roy, Addl. PP

¶6

02 / 17.09.2026 Heard the parties.

¶7

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Sessions Trial Case no. 70 of 2025 arising out of Lohardaga P. S. case no. 63 of 2025 instituted under Section 103/3 (5) of BNS, 2023.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed murder of Kulsum Khatun who is the sister of the informant. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the meanwhile, four witnesses have been examined and PW4 is the informant of the case he has categorically stated that the petitioner has committed murder of Kulsum Khatun. It is next submitted that the PW1 has also, in para 5, has stated that the petitioner has committed murder of Kulsum Khatun and in their cross-examination, PW1 and PW4 have stated that they are not the eye-witness to the occurrence. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent, as mentioned in paragraph 11 of the bail application. It is

¶9

next submitted that the petitioner has been in jail custody since 14.04.2025, as mentioned in para 10 of this bail application. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the trial of the case and undertakes not to annoy or disturb the informant or the other witness of the case in any manner during trial of the case, hence, the petitioner may be admitted to bail.

¶10

Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that though PW 2 in para 5 of his deposition has categorically stated that inter alia the petitioner has committed the murder of Kulsum Khatun and there is absolutely no cross-examination of PW2 in this respect and the consequence is that the testimony of PW2 is to the effect the petitioner has committed murder of Kulsum Khatun, is to be treated as true. It is next submitted that in view of the overwhelming evidence against the petitioner; there is every chance of the petitioner absconding, if released on bail and also there is chance of the petitioner tampering with the evidence. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not be released on bail at this stage.

¶11

Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and as well as the chance of his tampering with the evidence and absconding, if released on bail, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioner be released on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected at this stage.

¶12

( ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)

¶13

Dated 17.09.2026 Smita/-

Sahjan Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sahjan Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases