Allowed

Sangeeta Devi v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC15 Apr 2026B.A./917/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand granted bail to the petitioner accused under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on furnishing a bond and submitting an undertaking to cooperate with the trial and remain within contact.

What did the court decide?

Enlargement on bail by furnishing Rs.25,000 bond with two sureties of similar amount and submitting an undertaking to cooperate with the trial and not change mobile number.

Sangeeta Devi Vs State of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

2026:JHHC:10697

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.917 of 2026

¶3

------

¶4

Sangeeta Devi, Aged about 26 years, W/o- Late Harihar Singh Munda, R/o- Village- Surshu, P.O. & P.S. – Sikidiri, Dist- Ranchi

¶5

.... .... …. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

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

¶8

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

¶9

------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailesh Poddar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, Addl.P.P. ------

¶10

Order No:-05 Dated:-15-04-2026

¶11

Heard the parties.

¶12

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Sikidiri P.S. Case No. 14 of 2025 (S.T. Case No. 582 of 2025) registered for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 238 of the B.N.S, 2023 and cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 238, 61(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed murder of Anil Prajapati @ Bablu. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is then submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and she has been implicated in this case only on the basis of confessional statement of the petitioner herself and the coaccused person. It is then submitted that the petitioner is a female. It is also submitted that so far, none of the 19 charge-sheeted witnesses have been examined in this case. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 22.03.2025 as is evident from para-4 of the instant bail application. It is further submitted that the petitioner undertakes to co-operate with 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 AJC-XII, Ranchi in connection with Sikidiri P.S. Case No. 14 of 2025 (S.T. Case No. 582 of 2025) 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.

¶16

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶17

Dated:- 15.04.2026 Nandini/

Sangeeta Devi v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangeeta Devi 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

Muchi Rai Munda Vs State of Jharkhand

Shankar Prasad Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Md. Israfil Alias Guddu Alias Mohammad Ishrafil Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajendra Kumar Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Afroz Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sahraj Ageriya Vs State of Jharkhand