Mithun Paswan vs The State Of Jharkhand ...... Opp. Party
2026 Latest Caselaw 1352 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Mithun Paswan vs The State Of Jharkhand ...... Opp. Party on 19 February, 2026

Author: Rajesh Kumar

Bench: Rajesh Kumar

                                                     2026:JHHC:4942

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                B.A. No.11644 of 2025

    Mithun Paswan, aged about 27 years, S/o - Late Pokhan
    Paswan, R/o Village - Hanuman Bigha, PO - Belhad, P.S. -
    Kashichak, District - Newada (Bihar).
                                         ...... Petitioner
                          Versus
    The State of Jharkhand                       ......       Opp. Party
                              ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Advocate For the State : Mr. V. K. Vashistha, A.P.P

--------

               th
03/Dated: 19        February, 2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the State.

2. The applicant, who is in custody since 15.09.2025, has approached this Court for grant of regular bail in connection with Nimiaghat P.S. Case No.90 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 270/ 271 of BNS, 2023 and Section 47(a)/ 47(F)/ 52/ 55 of the Excise Act.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that complete set of F.I.R along with its enclosures have been annexed with the present bail application and there is no suppression on his/ her part.

Innocence of the applicant has been claimed and undertaking has been given for participation in the trial. It has been submitted that this applicant has been apprehended from the place of occurrence and by referring to para - 30 of the case diary, the bail petition has been rejected by the trial court. The said para of the case diary relates to the witness Santosh Kumar, who has alleged that he has given the hotel on agreement to Bablu Kumar. Thus, the factual matrix recorded by the trial court referring to the particular para of the case diary is wrong. It has further been submitted that the charge has already been framed on 06.01.2026. On the above basis, prayer for bail has been made.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.

5. No any material has been brought to the notice of this Court suggesting that this applicant has any connection either

2026:JHHC:4942

with the hotel or with the vehicle from where the spirit has been seized. No criminal antecedent has been reported against this applicant.

6. Considering the above fact, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the applicant is directed to be released on bail, on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M.F.C., Giridih in connection with Nimiaghat P.S. Case No.90 of 2025, on the condition that the applicant will submit self-attested photocopy of his Aadhaar Card and also submit his mobile number before the learned trial court which he will always keep active and will not change it during pendency of this case without prior permission of the court.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) 19th February, 2026 Ravi-Chandan/-

Uploaded on 19.02.2026