High CourtsSingle Bench

Milan Turi vs State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 12 January 2026 · Citation: (2026) 01 JH CK 1780

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 323, 341, 386, 387, 448, 504 · Arms Act, 1959 — Section 27
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 11173 Of 2025
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 381 words

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J

1.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State.

2.

This application has been filed for grant of regular bail to  the  petitioner  in  connection  with  Giddi  P.S.  Case  No.07  of  2024, registered  for  the  offence  under  sections  341,  323,  448,  386,  387, 504  and  34  of  the  IPC  and  Section  27  of  the  Arms  Act,  pending  in court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hazaribagh.

3.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits  that  the  petitioner  is  not  named  in  the  FIR  and  the  name  of the petitioner has  come on confessional statement. He submits  that the  charge  has  already  been  framed  on  21.06.2024  and  it  has  been pointed  out  that  till  date  no  witness  has  been  examined.  He  submits that  the  petitioner  is  in  custody  since  05.03.2024  and  the  co-accused Rajiv Kumar @ Rajiv Kumar Bhuiyan has been granted regular bail  by the learned Sessions Judge. He next submits that earlier the petitioner  has  moved  before  this  Court  in  B.A.  No.8614  of  2024 and the  same  was  dismissed  as  withdrawn  with  liberty  to  file  afresh  with better  particulars.  He  next  submits  that  thereafter  the  B.A.  No.10074 of 2024 has been filed which has been dismissed as withdrawn by the coordinate Bench vide order dated 30.7.2025 and he next submits that after  30.7.2025,  no  witness  has  been  examined  as  yet  and  about  six months have already been elapsed.

4.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State opposed the prayer of regular bail of the petitioner  and  submits  that  the  allegations  are  there  of  demanding extortion and the petitioner is having a criminal antecedent.

5.

Considering that in identical situation the coaccused has been granted regular bail by the learned Sessions  Judge and the charge has already been framed on 21.06.2024 and it has been pointed out that till date no witness has been examined, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner.

6.

Accordingly, petitioner, above named, is hereby directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand),  with two sureties  of like amount each, to  satisfaction of learned Judicial  Magistrate  First Class, Hazaribagh, in connection with Giddi P.S. Case No.07 of 2024.