Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 1751 Jhar
Judgement Date : 11 March, 2026
2026:JHHC:6436
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 11120 of 2025
------
1. Shashi Kumar Singh @ Shashi Kumar, S/o Late Rajendra Singh @ Rajendra Sharma, R/o Village -Bahranwan, PO- Sawan Khairma, PS- Halsi, District- Lakhisarai (Bihar).
2. Ramrash Singh @ Rajeev Kumar, S/o Ramji Sharma, R/o Village - Bahranwan, PO- Sawan Khairma, PS- Halsi, District- Lakhisarai (Bihar).
.... .... .... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. .... .... .... Opposite Party
...........
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ...........
For the Petitioners : Ms. Shivani Bhardwaj, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanat Kr. Jha, APP For the Informant : Mr. Gaurav, Advocate
------
Order No.04 / Dated : 11.03.2026.
I.A. No.3297 of 2026.
The aforesaid interlocutory application has been filed for withdrawal of prayer for bail on behalf of petitioner no.2 [Ramrash Singh @ Rajeev Kumar].
Learned counsel for the petitioners does not want to press prayer for bail on behalf of petitioner no.2 [Ramrash Singh @ Rajeev Kumar]. Accordingly, the prayer made in the instant interlocutory application is allowed and prayer for bail on behalf of petitioner no.2 [Ramrash Singh @ Rajeev Kumar] stands dismissed as withdrawn.
The aforesaid I.A. stands allowed.
Heard both the sides.
The petitioner no.1, above-named, who is in custody in connection with Hirodih (Giridih) P.S. Case No. 121 of 2025 for the offence registered under Sections 61(2), 103 (1), 238(b) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, has prayed for regular bail.
As per the prosecution case, both the petitioners left the house of the informant along with the deceased on 07.09.2025 and thereafter the deceased did not return home. His mobile was found to be switched off .When the informant who happens to be son of the deceased contacted the petitioner(s), he did not give any explanation with regard to whereabouts of the deceased. Consequently, the FIR was lodged on 09.09.2025 against the petitioners.
2026:JHHC:6436
It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioner No.1 that there is no material against him save and except his confessional statement and the confessional statement made before the Police has got no evidentiary value in view of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Further, no incriminating article was found from the possession of the petitioner(s) and there is no direct or circumstantial evidence to connect him in the alleged offence. It is further submitted that cause of death could not be ascertained in the post-mortem examination report as it has been stated that it could not be ruled out that death was caused due to excess consumption of alcohol. Further, there is no external injury.
Learned A.P.P. for the State assisted by learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that petitioner no.1 is named as prime accused in the FIR. He had left the home only a day before the incidence with the petitioner no.2 and thereafter his dead body was found on disclosure statement made by this petitioner which is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Cause of death in the PM Report is asphyxia due to drowning. It is further submitted that no explanation whatsoever had been offered by this petitioner when the deceased went missing nor at a later stage. The deceased was last seen with him.
Considering the nature of allegation and gravity of offence, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner no.1 on bail and accordingly, the same is hereby rejected.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/
Uploaded
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!