JAGDISH SAW vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - PANKAJ KUMAR — B.A./2410/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 190,191(3),126(I),115(2),109,329(3),303(2),352,BNS. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 25th March 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: JHHC010083072026

Filing Number

B.A./5447/2026

Filing Date

11-Mar-2026

Registration No

B.A./2410/2026

Registration Date

20-Mar-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr.justice Sujit Narayan Prasad

Coram

Hon'ble Mr.justice Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE ( 121 )

Sub-Category

SECTION 483 ( 5 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Decision Date

25-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed

Last updated 14-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 190,191(3),126(I),115(2),109,329(3),303(2),352,BNS

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.JAGDISH SAW

    Adv. AWNISH SHANKAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - PANKAJ KUMAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 25-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Mr.justice Sujit Narayan PrasadView PDF

    The Jharkhand High Court granted bail to Jagdish Saw in a mining project incident case, finding that co-accused persons had already been granted bail and the evidence against him was weak—including CCTV footage showing he was not present at the mining campus. The petitioner was directed to furnish a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of equal amount, with conditions to cooperate in trial and maintain regular attendance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 25-Mar-2026

    Fresh Filing (Admission)

    Hon'ble Mr.justice Sujit Narayan Prasad

  4. 11-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. B.A./2410/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Jharkhand High Court granted bail to Jagdish Saw in a mining project incident case, finding that co-accused persons had already been granted bail and the evidence against him was weak—including CCTV footage showing he was not present at the mining campus. The petitioner was directed to furnish a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of equal amount, with conditions to cooperate in trial and maintain regular attendance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case