Dhiraj Kumar Singh Alias Dheeraj Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

2026:JHHC:6407

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶3

B.A. No. 9898 of 2025

¶4

----

¶5

Dhiraj Kumar Singh @ Dheeraj Singh, aged 41 years, S/o Shambhu Prasad Singh, R/o – Chansnala, PO and PS – Sudamdih, District - Dhanbad ….. Petitioner

¶6

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

¶7

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶9

For the Petitioner	:-	--- Mr. Shailesh Kr. Singh, Advocate
	:-	Mr. Abhijit Kr. Singh, Advocate
For the State	:-	Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, Advocate
For the Informant	:-	Mr. Nishant Kr. Roy, Advocate ----

¶10

07 /11.03.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the Informant.

¶11

2. The petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Patherdih P.S. Case No.16 of 2023 (S.T. Case No.772 of 2023) for the alleged offences registered under Sections 302, 307 and 120B of Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-B)a and 27(1) of Arms Act pending in the Court of learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-XI, Dhanbad.

¶12

3. This petitioner was granted regular bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in B.A. No.3594 of 2024 by order dated

¶13

--1--

¶14

B.A. No. 9898 of 2025

¶15

2026:JHHC:6407

¶16

03.10.2024. The informant of the case has challenged the said order before Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (CRL) No.2124 of 2025 and Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 21.05.2025 has been pleased to set aside the order of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and requested the High Court to reconsider the bail application afresh on merits.

¶17

4. This matter has been assigned to this Bench and that is how it has been listed before this Bench.

¶18

5. Mr. Shailesh Kr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been only implicated on suspicion and there is no material of involvement of the petitioner in murder of the brother of the informant. He further submits that while the matter was pending before Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to the bail application two cases has been lodged by the informant against the petitioner and in one of the case the petitioner has been acquitted and in another case final form has been submitted in favour of the petitioner. He then submits that the co-accused persons have been granted regular bail by different Benches of this Court. He next submits that in CCTV footage only two persons have been found there, who are said to be shooters namely Sonu @ Pahalwan and Aman Yadav. He also submits that in paragraph

¶19

--2--

¶20

B.A. No. 9898 of 2025

¶21

2026:JHHC:6407

¶22

No.52 of the case diary, it has come that two of the accused persons have been arrested and in paragraph No.55 of the case diary it has come that on their confession the case has been narrated. He next submits that other three cases have been lodged against the petitioner in which the witnesses are either brother or staff of the informant and one of the witness namely Imtiyaz Ali having four criminal antecedents. On these grounds, he submits that the regular bail may kindly be granted.

¶23

6. Learned counsel appearing for the State and Informant jointly opposed the prayer of regular bail and submits that prior of the present case the attempt to murder to brother of the informant was made and for that Jorapokhar P.S. Case No.77 of 2019 was registered in which the charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner. By way of referring to paragraph No.7, 8, 16 and 37 of the case diary, they submit that witnesses have stated that on the behest of the petitioner the firing was made. The statement of the injured (later on died) namely Raj Kishor Singh under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded in paragraph No.13 of the case diary in which he has stated about enmity with the petitioner and he has also stated that the shooters were saying that they are the men of

¶24

--3--

¶25

B.A. No. 9898 of 2025

¶26

2026:JHHC:6407

¶27

this petitioner and they were also saying that they will not spare anybody. They also submit that the motorcycle which was used in the crime was recovered on the confessional statement of Aditya Sethi and this petitioner. PW-2, who is the son of one of the deceased, has also stated in paragraph No.4 of the examination in chief on enquiry from the father he has stated that two men of Dheeraj Singh have made firing. PW-3, who happened to be wife of Raj Kishor Singh has also stated that on enquiry made by her husband he has stated that two persons indiscriminately made firing upon Praveen Kumar Rai and when he has gone to save him he has also received the injury and in paragraph No.5 of examination in chief she has stated that the persons, who were riding the motorcycle, were saying that they are men of Dheeraj Singh and anybody, who will come in front of them, they will shoot them.

¶28

7. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that out of 14 prosecution witnesses 5 have already been examined and trial is in progress and in view of the nature of the case the bail may not be granted as there is genuine apprehension against the petitioner that once bail will be granted he will again make mischief.

¶29

8. The petitioner is made accused in Jorapokhar P.S. Case

¶30

--4--

¶31

B.A. No. 9898 of 2025

¶32

2026:JHHC:6407

¶33

No.77 of 2019 for trying to attempt to murder of the deceased namely Praveen Kumar Rai in which charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner.

¶34

9. In paragraph Nos.7, 8, 16 and 37 of the case diary, witnesses have stated that miscreants, who were made firing, were taking the name of the petitioner, who is Dhiraj Kumar Singh and at his behest the firing was made. One of the injured, who died later on, has made statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., which has come in paragraph No.13 of the case diary that he has stated that persons were taking the name of the petitioner and saying that they will shoot anybody.

¶35

10. In paragraph No.150 of the case diary, the motorcycle used in the crime was recovered on the joint confessional statement of Aditya Sethi and the petitioner.

¶36

11. PW-2 is the son of one of the deceased has stated in paragraph No.4 of chief that on enquiry from the father he has disclosed that two men of Dheeraj Singh indiscriminately fired upon Praveen Kumar Rai and in the course of saving the father PW-2 has also received the injury. Wife of deceased namely Raj Kishor Singh, who has been examined as PW-3, has also stated that the persons, who were riding the motorcycle, were saying that they are the men of Dheeraj Singh and they will

¶37

--5--

¶38

B.A. No. 9898 of 2025

¶39

2026:JHHC:6407

¶40

shoot them, if any person will come in the front.

¶41

12. Petitioner is having the criminal antecedent and it has been pointed out that 5 prosecution witnesses have already been examined out of 14 which prima facie suggests that trial is in progress. The conduct of the petitioner as discussed above and if he will be released the mischief further made by the petitioner cannot be ruled out. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner, as such the regular bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

¶42

13. If the trial is not concluded within eight weeks, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.

¶43

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶44

Dated 11.03.2026 Sangam/

¶45

--6--

¶46

B.A. No. 9898 of 2025

Dhiraj Kumar Singh Alias Dheeraj Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhiraj Kumar Singh Alias Dheeraj Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhupendrapal Singh Bhatia Vs State of Jharkhand through the Anti Corruption Bureau

Pramod Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

Pramod Kumar Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pratik Vs the State of Jharkhand through Home Secretary, Govt of Jharkhand

Mubarak Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dulara Ganjhu Alias Dular Ganjhu Vs the State of Jharkhand