Virendra Maraiya @ Birendra Kumar ... vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 2096 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Virendra Maraiya @ Birendra Kumar ... vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite ... on 18 March, 2026

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

                                                                         2026:JHHC:7409




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                                 B.A. No. 11861 of 2025

            Virendra Maraiya @ Birendra Kumar Maraiya @ Virendra Kr
            Madaiya, Aged about 24 years, Son of Sonalal Maraiya, Resident of
            Village- Kairasol, Post Office- Kairasol, Police Station- Sundarpahari,
            District- Godda, Jharkhand                    ...     ...      Petitioner
                                     Versus
            The State of Jharkhand          ...         ...       Opposite Party
                                     ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

            For the Petitioner       : Mr. Anup Kumar Agarwal, Advocate
            For the Opp. Party       : Ms. Sushma Aind, APP
                                     ---

03/18.03.2026          Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 27.02.2024 in connection with S.T. No. 244 of 2024 arising out of Sunderpahari P.S. Case No. 09 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 432 of 2024, registered under Sections 364 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, now pending in the court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-IIIrd, Godda.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody and trial is going on. He submits that out of 7 charge- sheeted witnesses, two witnesses have been examined. He submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated only on account of suspicion and as per the First Information Report, the suspicion has been raised on the ground that there was land dispute between the parties.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has referred to the case-diary to submit that on the confessional statement of the petitioner, the half burn dead body has been recovered.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the aforesaid submissions based on case-diary and the fact that trial is in progress, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected.

6. However, the State is directed to ensure prompt production of 2026:JHHC:7409

the witnesses.

7. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution and also to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance.

8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through "FAX/email".

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:18.03.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:18.03.2026