Sunny Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 18 March, 2026

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

                                                             2026:JHHC:7488

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                              B.A. No.1521 of 2026
                                    -----
           Sunny Kumar, son of Mahendra Verma, resident of village Merawal,
           Sindoor, Siyari, PO and PS Korrah, District Hazaribagh
                                                             ... Petitioner(s).
                                    Versus
           The State of Jharkhand                       ... Opposite Party(s).

           CORAM       :       SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

           For the Petitioner(s)    : Mr. A. K. Chaturvedy, Advocate
           For the State            : Mr. Ajay Kr. Pathak, APP

                                    .........

02 /18.03.2026: This bail application has been filed under Sections 483 & 484 of BNSS, 2023 wherein, prayer has been made for grant of bail as he is in custody for allegedly committing offence punishable under Sections 309(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

2. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and have also gone through the impugned order.

3. Learned APP opposes the prayer for bail.

4. The prayer of bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 18.08.2025 in B.A. No. 5064 of 2025. The petitioner has renewed the same again.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the case is triable by the Magistrate and the petitioner is in custody since 03.03.2025. He further submits that the petitioner and the victim are of same locality. Thus, with the ulterior motive this petitioner has been implicated in this case only to wreck vengeance. He submits that the brother of the informant is an influential person of the area and working in Zila Parishad. As the petitioner refused to work as per his dictate he has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel further submits that PW1 who happens to be the informant has already been examined. The learned counsel takes this Court to several

2026:JHHC:7488

paragraphs of the deposition and argues that as per the deposition it can be proved and established that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. By referring to paragraph 42 of the evidence he submits that the informant in the cross examination stated that on the next day her brother had called the petitioner. Further by referring to paragraph 44 of the evidence he submits that the informant had stated that she faces difficulty in seeing without spectacles as the occurrence had taken place at night it can be presumed that she could not identify the accused and the statement in respect of identification cannot be accepted. By referring to paragraph 37 of the evidence he submits that the fact that the brother of the informant is in Zila Parishad, thus, he is an influential person. By referring to paragraph 39 which is a suggestion given to the informant, learned counsel submits that the brother of the informant with some other persons of the locality has got the petitioner involved in this case. He submits that there is no antecedents of the petitioner. He lastly submits that as per the FIR the door was broken open but the police did not find any material or evidence that the door was broken.

6. I have referred and discussed all these points because learned counsel for the petitioner referred to all these paragraphs and wants this Court to consider and deal these issues raised.

7. In the FIR the allegation is that some unknown persons entered the house of the informant and taken them hostage and looted several materials and also assaulted them. In the FIR it has also been mentioned by the informant that all the persons had covered their faces with cloth but when they were going out/fleeing, cloth from face of one of the person fell and the informant identified him to be this petitioner.

2026:JHHC:7488

8. From the FIR it is quite clear that the petitioner has been identified by the informant while committing the offence. Now there needs some corroboration. The informant has been examined as PW1. The evidence of PW1 has been brought on record and relied exclusively by the petitioner. PW1 in paragraph no.1 clearly stated how the miscreants entered the house and assaulted the inmates. PW1 in paragraph no. 2 stated that while the miscreants were fleeing cloth from the face one of the miscreants fell and he was identified to be Sunny Kumar, who is this petitioner. Thus, identity of this petitioner in commission of the offence has been established.

9. So far as the paragraphs relied upon by the petitioner is concerned there is nothing conclusive to come to a conclusion that this petitioner has not committed the offence. It has only stated that the informant's brother is in Zila Parishad. It has not been stated in the entire evidence that in what capacity he is in Zila Parishad. Further in paragraph no. 42 he states that the brother of the petitioner had given a call to the petitioner but there is nothing in evidence whether it was responded or not. It is only a suggestion which has been recorded in paragraph no. 43 which is nothing conclusive.

10. From the evidence of paragraph no. 1, prima-facie, there are sufficient material against this petitioner, thus, I am not inclined to grant privilege of bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner in connection with Korrah PS Case No. 41 of 2025 corresponding to GR Case No. 965 of 2025, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh stands rejected.

11. Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed.

2026:JHHC:7488

12. Now before parting, this Court likes to reiterated the direction given to all the Judicial Officers vide order dated 13.01.2023 in BA No. 12960 of 2022 titled "Jishu Tudu vs. the State of Jharkhand". In that case, this Court had taken note of the fact that while recording evidence the Trial Courts are recording examination-in-chief and thereafter adjourning the matter for cross examination on one pretext or the other may be also on the request made by the learned counsel for the defence. This Court did not approve the aforesaid practice. A direction was given that when a victim is examined as witness, examination-in-chief and cross-examination should be concluded on the very same day. Cross-examination should not be deferred or adjourned. It has also been ordered that for doing so if the Court has to sit beyond the Court's normal timings the Court shall do so and only after discharging the victim will conclude the day's proceeding. It has also been held that in exceptional cases the same can be deferred, that too, on the next day.

13. In this case, I find that PW1 who is also the victim of the incident, was examined on 14.11.2025, and thereafter on a plain request, without any sufficient ground, the examination was deferred/adjourned to 26.11.2025 for cross examination. This postponement gives room to the unscrupulous litigants to tamper with the evidence. This should be avoided.

14. The Trial Courts are directed to comply the aforesaid order seriously and strictly.

15. Let the copy of this order along with the order in B.A. No. 12960 of 2022 be communicated to all the Trial Courts, including the Judicial Commissioner.

(ANANDA SEN, J.) 18.03.2026 Tanuj/CP-3 Uploaded on 23.03.2026