Manoj Ram @ Manoj Bhuiyan vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 1537 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Manoj Ram @ Manoj Bhuiyan vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 26 February, 2026

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                 ( 2026:JHHC:5763 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
              B.A. No. 817 of 2026
                       ------

Manoj Ram @ Manoj Bhuiyan, aged about 37 years, son of Kishun Ram, resident of Village-Ramkanda, P.O. & P.S.- Ramkanda, Dist.-Garhwa ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party

------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Shoe Kr. Singh, Advocate : Mr. Raj Nandan Chatterjee, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, Addl. P.P.

------

Order No.02 Dated- 26.02.2026

Heard the parties.

The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with ST No. 48 of 2025 arising out of Ramkanda P.S. Case No.37 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under sections 103(1)/3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and charge sheet has been submitted under Section 103(1), 3(5) of B.N.S., 2023 and under Section 3/4 PWP Act.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is the second journey of the petitioner with the prayer of regular bail and the fresh ground is that so far four witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and except P.W.4 all other witnesses are not the eyewitness of the occurrence. It is then submitted that P.W.4 has categorically stated that the deceased died by the assault with crowbar (sabal) of the co-accused persons and the only allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was jumping over the deceased while the co-accused persons were assaulting her with crowbar. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.

The Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that keeping in view the serious nature of allegation which is corroborated by the eyewitness account of the P.W.4, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not be admitted to bail.

Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner as well as the evidence that has come through the eye witness account of P.W.4 as also the chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence if released on bail, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the abovenamed petitioner be admitted to bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the abovenamed petitioner is rejected.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 26.02.2026 Gunjan-