Alok Ram @ Nepali @ Alok Kumar Aged About ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 1284 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Alok Ram @ Nepali @ Alok Kumar Aged About ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 February, 2026

Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF                     JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   Cr. A (D.B.) No. 1425 of 2025
                                   ---------

Alok Ram @ Nepali @ Alok Kumar aged about 26 years, Son of Late Binod Ram, resident of village Semari, P.O. & P.S. Patan, District- Palamu.

                                                   ...      ...      Appellant
                                   Versus
The State of Jharkhand                              ...     ...      Respondent
                               ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

----------

For the Appellant : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mrs. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P.

-----------

th 04/Dated: 18 February, 2026 I.A. No.1088 of 2026

1. Heard Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

2. This application has been preferred by the appellant for grant of bail to him during the pendency of this appeal.

3. The appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 302/34 and Section 201/34 of the I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life along with fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C.

4. It has been alleged that the brother of the informant was murdered by the accused persons.

5. Submission has been advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been implicated only on the basis of suspicion on account of the fact that the appellant happens to be the brother of one Sandhya Kumari who was having a purported love affair with the deceased.

6. It has been submitted that P.W.3, P.W.6 and P.W.7 have categorically stated that the deceased was last seen with Guddu Pandey and so far as the recovery of some incriminating articles are

Page | 1 concerned, the same is on account of the confessional statement rendered by co-convict Sunil Kumar.

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.

8. It appears that Sunil Kumar had confessed and subsequent there to, the appellant had also confessed leading to recovery of murder weapon as well as the wearing apparels of the appellant which contained blood stains. Although, admittedly there are no eye-witnesses to the occurrence, but regard being had to the strong circumstances emanating from the evidence of the witnesses and the recovery, we are not inclined to admit the appellant on bail. His prayer for bail is hereby rejected at this stage.

9. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1088 of 2026 also stands rejected.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

Date:- 18th February, 2026.

Amar/-

Uploaded on -19 / 02/2026

Page | 2