SABIR MIYAN v. STATE OF JHARKHAND
Court: High Court of Jharkhand
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Jharkhand judgment dated 2025-12-12. SABIR MIYAN v. STATE OF JHARKHAND. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
( 2025:JHHC:37483 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 9465 of 2025 ------ Sabir Miyan, aged about 48 years, son of Khurshid Miyan @ Kushar Miyan, Resident of Village –Karailibar, P. O. –Jori, Police Station –Bashisthnagar, District –Chatra. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Ankit Burman, Advocate (Through Video Conferencing) For the State : Ms. Kumari Rashmi, Addl. P. P. For the Informant : Mr. Pankaj Verma, Advocate : Mr. Vikesh Kumar, Advocate ------ Order No. 04 Dated- 12. 12. 2025 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Pratappur P. S. Case No. 141 of 2024 (S. T. No. 145 of 2025) registered for the offences punishable under sections 103(1)/140(1)/3(5) of the B. N. S. , 2023.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is the second journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail and earlier the prayer for regular bail was rejected vide order dated 23. 04. 2025 in B. A. No. 3211 of 2025. It is further submitted that the fresh ground is that so far three witnesses have been examined but they have not supported the case of the prosecution and they have been declared hostile. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. The learned Addl. P. P. and the learned counsel for the informant on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the informant that the informant will examine himself in this case within a month and there are twelve other witnesses who will support the case of the prosecution and the petitioner is the principal accused and the weapon of the offence has been led to recovery by the petitioner.
Therefore, there is every change of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not be admitted to bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner as well as the chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence if released on bail, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the abovenamed petitioner be admitted to bail at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the abovenamed petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. ) 12. 12. 2025 Sonu/Gunjan-
Source: High Court of Jharkhand. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.