Sumit Kumar Alias Sumit Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

2026:JHHC:4355

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9908 of 2025

….

Sumit Kumar @ Sumit Kumar Singh, aged 26 years, S/o Pappu Singh, Resident of Address- 88, near Project Office, PostGhatotand, P.S.-Mandu, Ramgarh, Jharkhand, PIN- 825314.

¶5

……Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand ……Opp. Party

¶8

-----

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

¶10

-----

¶11

For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, APP

¶12

ORAL ORDER IN COURT

¶13

04/16.02.2026 Heard Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Senior Counsel for the

¶14

petitioner and Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned APP for the State.

¶15

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of

¶16

the petitioner namely, Sumit Kumar @ Sumit Kumar Singh for grant of regular bail who is in custody in S.T. Case No. 124 of 2025 arising out of Ramgarh Mahila P.S. Case No. 06 of 2025 instituted for the offences under Sections 69, 352, 115(2), 61(2) of B.N.S. Act.

¶17

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted

¶18

that the petitioner is innocent. It is submitted that no any specific

¶19

¶20

2026:JHHC:4355

¶21

overt act is attributed against the petitioner by the Informant. It is submitted that as a matter of fact the petitioner has married with the Informant (deceased-Payal Kumari) and he was transferred to Jamshedpur in connection with job and in the meantime, he was not picking up the phone of the Informant. It is submitted that Informant and her mother has merely alleged against the father and brother of the petitioner Pappu Singh and Alok Singh respectively, however, they have been granted regular bail by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, FTC, Ramgarh on 12.06.2025 itself. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 24.04.2025 i.e. for around 10 (Ten) Months and hence, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶22

On the other hand, learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that the petitioner had performed marriage with the Informant-Payal Kumari and later on he refused to keep her. It is submitted that after lodging of the FIR, subsequently, the deceased-Payal Kumari had committed suicide when the petitioner was not picking up her phone and the accused persons including the petitioner were pressurizing the Informant to withdraw the case. It is submitted that Sushma Singh- Mother of the Informant has specifically stated that the petitioner had left the deceased to her house and later on he was not picking up her

¶23

¶24

2026:JHHC:4355

¶25

mobile phone and switched off his mobile due to which her daughter fallen ill. She tried to contact with the family members of the petitioner but she was abused by Pappu Singh (father of the petitioner), Alok Singh (brother of the petitioner) and also by the mother of the petitioner and stated that they will not accept her daughter Payal Kumari and as a result of which she put herself on fire in her house and hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner may be rejected.

¶26

Perused the FIR, case diary and considered the submission of both sides.

¶27

It appears that the petitioner had solemnized the marriage

¶28

with the Informant- Payal Kumari on 05.02.2024 but the family members of the petitioner did not accept her.

¶29

It appears from the statement of Sushma Singh at Page-6 of the case diary who is mother of Informant that the Informant has committed her death by ablazing into fire. Though, there may not be active role of the petitioner but the conduct of the petitioner forced the deceased- Payal Kumari to commit suicide when he failed to give her moral support.

¶30

However, considering the fact and the circumstances of this case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner- Sumit Kumar @ Sumit Kumar Singh on bail at this stage.

¶31

¶32

2026:JHHC:4355

¶33