MD Islam Alias Bali Vs the State of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2026)

MD Islam Alias Bali Vs the State of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether petitioner Md. Islam @ Bali, in custody since 09.02.2022 in S.T. No. 289 of 2022 with charges framed under Sections 376D, 302/34, 201/34, 120(B) IPC, should be enlarged on bail.

Court's answer

The Court was not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail after hearing counsel and considering the seriousness of the alleged offence, the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and the counter affidavit pointed out by the State.

Ratio / Principle

There can be no reason for the State not to produce the witnesses, particularly as the petitioner is in custody since 09.02.2022; the State is directed to ensure the witnesses are promptly produced before the court.

Key takeaways

Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution as well as the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail Application Rejected — High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, B.A. No. 9585 of 2025 (decided 19.06.2026, Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary): Regular bail application of Md. Islam @ Bali, aged about 29 years, in custody since 09.02.2022 in S.T. No. 289 of 2022 arising out of Dumka (M) P.S. Case No. 204 of 2021 / G.R. No. 773 of 2022, was rejected. Offence initially registered under Sections 302/34, 201, 120(B) IPC; charge framed under Sections 376D, 302/34, 201/34, 120(B) IPC, pending before Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dumka. Petitioner's counsel argued false implication — petitioner allegedly in judicial custody on the FIR date and on 21.10.2021 in another FIR — and parity with the co-accused husband of the victim, who was granted bail on 13.10.2023 in B.A. No. 6019 of 2023. The State opposed bail citing the counter affidavit, including a DNA profile match between petitioner and victim. Considering the seriousness of the alleged offence, the facts and circumstances and the counter affidavit, the Court declined bail, but directed the State to promptly produce witnesses given the prolonged custody, and directed counsel for the State to communicate the order to the Director, Prosecution and the concerned Superintendent of Police.

2026:JHHC:17896

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

B.A. No. 9585 of 2025

Md. Islam @ Bali, aged about 29 years, S/o Md. Santar

… … Petitioner

The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --For the Petitioner : Mr. Nityanand Prasad, Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : Ms. Sushma Aind, Addl. P.P.

05 /19.06.2026

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 09.02.2022 in connection with S.T. No. 289 of 2022 arising out of Dumka (M) P.S. Case No. 204 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. No. 773 of 2022, for the alleged offence registered under Sections 302/34, 201, 120(B) of Indian Penal Code and charge has been framed under Section 376D, 302/34, 201/34, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dumka.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the coaccused has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 13.10.2023 in B.A. No. 6019 of 2023, who was the husband of the victim. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case in view of the fact that on date of first information report and also on 21.10.2021, the petitioner was in judicial custody in connection with another FIR. The learned counsel for the petitioner is not aware as to how many witnesses has been examined so far and what is the stage of the case.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer for bail and referred to the counter affidavit and has submitted that DNA profile of the petitioner has been found

1

2026:JHHC:17896

matching with that of the victim and as per the FIR the incident had happened a few days earlier.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the seriousness of alleged offence , aforesaid facts and circumstances and the counter affidavit as pointed out by the learned counsel for the State, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

6. The instant bail application is accordingly rejected.

7. However, there can be no reason for the State not to produce the witnesses particularly when the petitioner is in custody since 09.02.2022. The State is directed to ensure that the witnesses are promptly produce before the court.

8. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution as well as Superintendent of Police of the concerned district.

9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX/E-mail’.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

19.06.2026

Rakesh/-

Uploaded on:-19.06.2026

2