[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Sajjan Bhuiyan @ Sajjan Kumar Bhuiyan vs The State Of Jharkhand. ... ... Opposite ... on 9 March, 2026
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2026:JHHC:6053
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No.11250 of 2025
------
Sajjan Bhuiyan @ Sajjan Kumar Bhuiyan, aged about 21 years, son
of Late Awdhesh Bhuiyan, resident of Vill-Chaprna, PO-Chapi, PS-
Lesliganj, Dist-Palamu, Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ... ... Opposite Party(s)
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Ruby Pandey, APP
-----
th
02/ 09 March, 2026
1. This bail application has been filed under Sections 483
and 484 of the BNSS, 2023 wherein, prayer has been made for grant
of bail as the petitioner is in custody for allegedly committing
offences punishable under Sections 103(1) & 238(a) of Bhartiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. Heard the parties.
3. The learned APP opposes the prayer for grant of bail.
4. I have gone through the impugned order. I am astonished
after going through the impugned order, and the manner in which the
Court concerned has dealt with the bail application. This Court fails
to understand as to how the District Judge can pass this type of order
when the undertrial prisoner seeks bail, on whatever ground it may
be. I am tempted to quote the entire order, which reads as under:-
"O R D E R
(This 11 th
day of November, 2025)
1. This is a petition for the grant of regular bail filed on
behalf of the U.T.P. Sajjan Kumar Bhuiyan @ Sajjan Bhuiyan
who is under incarceration since 14.06.2025 in connection
with Lesliganj P.S. Case No.73 of 2025 corresponding to
G.R. Case No.1671 of 2025 registered u/s 103(1), 238(a)
of BNS, 2023.
2. The only ground raised by the U.T.P. is that he is very
innocent and has not committed any offence whatsoever. He
has been falsely implicated in the case. The narration detailed
in the F.I.R. is totally false, baseless and concocted. The U.T.P.
has been dragged only on the basis of suspicion.
3. The grounds raised by the U.T.P. are pre-matured and
cannot be appreciated by this Court at this stage. Innocence,
false implication et-al can only be seen at or after the
conclusion of trial.
4. The MCA is therefore dismissed."
2026:JHHC:6053
5. Once an undertrial approaches for bail, it has to be
considered as to whether the same is a fit case to grant bail or not.
In both the scenarios the Court has to consider and weigh the
material, then only pass a reasoned order either rejecting the bail
application or granting the bail.
6. At this stage, whatever may be the accusation, the Court
must keep in mind that he is a mere accused and not a convict. The
accusation levelled against him definitely needs to be proved by
evidence during trial, but during the stage of considering the bail
application, pending trial, the Court should assess the material
available in the case diary including the statements of the witnesses
recorded by the police under Section 181 of the BNSS, 2023. The
nature and gravity of the imputations alleged against the accused has
also to be considered. It has also to be considered as to what is the
maximum sentence that can be imposed if the prosecution proves the
imputation against the accused. Furthermore, it is the duty of the
Court also to consider as to whether it is appropriate to keep the
petitioner in custody.
7. Considering the aforesaid factors and also considering
whether the accused will face trial or there are imminent chance of
escaping trial and whether the petitioner will be a threat to the
witnesses and will tamper with the evidence or not, bail has to be
considered. The Court has to independently come to a conclusion
whether the accused should be released on bail or not based on the
conclusion. Be it noted, at this stage, that right to liberty of the
accused is a factor to be considered, keeping in view the well-
established principle i.e. "bail is the rule and jail is exception".
8.. No matter what grounds are taken by the petitioner or are
argued by the counsel for the petitioner, the trial Court has to
consider all the aforesaid condition before passing an order either to
refuse or grant bail.
9. In this case, I find that the trial Court has dismissed the
bail application declaring it as pre-mature. I failed to understand how
the trial Court who is in the rank of District Judge arrived at the
aforesaid conclusion when an undertrial prisoner is in custody and is
praying for bail.
10. In this case, the learned trial Judge has absolutely failed
2026:JHHC:6053
to discharge his duty. He has considered absolutely extraneous
materials which are not necessary to be considered at the time of
grant of bail to an under-trial.
11. The approach of the trial Court is not appreciated by this
Court, more so, when the case diary is already before the Court and
charge-sheet has already been filed.
12. Now coming to the merits of the case. The allegation in
this case as per the F.I.R. is that the daughter of the informant who
was sleeping outside, left at night but did not return and her body
was thereafter recovered. In the F.I.R., it has been mentioned that
the girl was in love with this petitioner and this petitioner was
agreeable to marry her but girl was not, being fearful of the society.
Be it noted that both the boy and girl are major. On suspicion that
this petitioner might have committed murder of the deceased, the
F.I.R. has been lodged.
13. The case diary is before this Court. The related witnesses
have narrated the story that there was love affair between the
deceased and this petitioner since long and this petitioner had also
gifted a mobile to the deceased and they were communicating with
each other regularly. This petitioner and the family members were
agreeable to get the petitioner married with the deceased but fearful
of the society and how the society will react, though the girl was
having love affair with the petitioner, she was not agreeable to marry
this petitioner. On the fateful night, while the others were sleeping, it
is alleged that she left, not to return and later on the body was
recovered. Thus, it is presumed that this petitioner has taken the
deceased to a lonely place and committed the murder. This is the
consistent story from the side of the prosecution.
14. Further, in the case diary paragraph No. 58 to 61 there
are statements of some independent witnesses who are the residents
of the vicinity. They clearly stated that they have neither seen the girl
going to any place at night along with this boy nor they heard any
human cry or any unnatural activity. These statement raise a doubt
in the mind of this Court about the involvement of this petitioner in
the occurrence. Further, the charge-sheet has already been
submitted in this case. The statement and evidence which has been
collected in the case diary are too weak evidence to keep this
2026:JHHC:6053
petitioner in custody. Thus, I am inclined to grant bail to the
petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Palamu in
connection with S.T. Case No.330/2025 arising out of Lesliganj P.S.
Case No.73/2025, corresponding to G.R. Case No.1671/2025 subject
to the condition that one of the bailors should be close relative of the
petitioner having sufficient landed property in his/her own name
within the State of Jharkhand.
15. Accordingly, this bail application is allowed.
16. Let a copy of this order be placed before the Hon'ble Chief
Justice.
17. Let a copy of the impugned order and this order also be
sent to the Jharkhand Judicial Academy.
18. Further, a copy of this order be also placed before the
concerned Judge who passed the impugned order.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
09.03.2026
SKD/CP-3
Uploaded on 11.03.2026
