Pawan Kumar Ray vs The State Of Jharkhand .... .... .... ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 2140 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Pawan Kumar Ray vs The State Of Jharkhand .... .... .... ... on 19 March, 2026

Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

                                                                                   2026:JHHC:7654




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                    B.A. No. 2202 of 2026
                                            ------

             Pawan Kumar Ray                  .... .... ....   Petitioner
                                   Versus
             The State of Jharkhand          ....  .... .... Opp. Party

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

For the Petitioner : Mr. Onkar Nath Tewary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Naveen Kumar Gaunjhu, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Yasir Arafat, Advocate

------

Order No.02 / Dated : 19.03.2026 Heard Mr. Onkar Nath Tewary, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. The petitioner is an accused in connection with Jasidih P.S. Case No. 145 of 2024 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar.

It has been alleged that the son of the informant was taken away by the petitioner at night, but he did not return. On the next day, his dead body was recovered from an abandoned mine.

Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that one of the co-accused namely Bikash Yadav @ Vikash Kumar Yadav has been granted anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in A.B.A. No.6175 of 2024. It has been submitted that at the time of incident, the petitioner was at Deoghar as he works in a construction Company. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 03.11.2025.

Learned A.P.P. as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

It appears that the dead body was recovered in close proximity to the allegation of the petitioner taking away the son of the informant. The cause of death as per the post-mortem report, has been opined to be Asphyxia due to strangulation. It further appears that there was a previous dispute between the petitioner and the deceased as they were not on talking terms.

On consideration of the strong circumstance which emanates from the above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and the same is hereby rejected at this stage.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) Anit Uploaded 20.03.2026