[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Punilal Saw vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite ... on 19 March, 2026
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
2026:JHHC:7581
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 2199 of 2026
Punilal Saw, aged about 48 years, son of Late Budhan Saw, resident
of Village: Manihari, P.O.: Manihari, P.S. Birni, District- Giridih
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Amrita Kumari, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Gautam Kr. Pandey, Advocate
---
04/19.03.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
in custody in connection with Birni P.S. Case No. 08 of 2026,
registered under Section 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
in custody since 11.01.2026 and there is delay of two months in filing
the First Information Report. He has referred to paragraph 12 of the
bail application to submit that the victim also refused to get herself
medically examined. He submits that this fact would be apparent from
paragraph 27 of the case-diary.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that
the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case.
5. The learned counsel for the informant has appeared and submits
that he has no objection for grant of bail to the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State has submitted that
the case-diary is not available with her to verify the statement made in
paragraph 12 of the bail application. She has also submitted that delay
in filing the First Information Report is explained by saying that the
husband of the victim had gone to Mumbai to earn a living.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the fact that there is delay of two months in filing the First
Information Report and as per the statement made in paragraph 12 of
2026:JHHC:7581
the bail application, the victim had also refused to give consent for her
medical examination and further, the informant of the case has no
objection for grant of bail to the petitioner, the petitioner is directed to
be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees
twenty-five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih in
connection with Birni P.S. Case No. 08 of 2026, on the following
conditions:
(i) The learned Court shall verify the aforesaid statement of the
petitioner from the case-diary that the victim had not consented for
medical examination and in case such statement is found incorrect ,
the petitioner shall not be released on bail.
(ii) One of the bailors would be the present pairvikar of the
petitioner.
(iii) The other bailor should be his close relative.
(iv) The petitioner will attend the court on each and every date and
on account of even single default, the learned court shall cancel the
bail bond furnished by the petitioner.
(v) The petitioner will deposit a self-attested copy of his Aadhar
Card along with his mobile number before the learned court which he
will not change during the pendency of the case without prior
permission of the court.
(vi) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the proceedings
before the learned trial court.
8. The instant application is allowed with the aforesaid conditions.
9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court
concerned through "FAX/email".
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Date of Order:19.03.2026
Pankaj
Date of Uploading:20.03.2026
