Allowed¶14

Sonu Thakur v. the State of Jharkhand

Bail – Regular bail

Jharkhand HC20 Feb 2026B.A./11832/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sonu Thakur v. The State of Jharkhand, B.A. No. 11832 of 2025, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Deepak Roshan, J.), decided 20.02.2026 - Regular bail granted for offences under Sections 70(1), 3(5) of BNS (Latehar Mahila P.S. Case No. 11 of 2025); petitioner in custody since 12.09.2025; bail bond Rs. 20,000/- with two like sureties to CJM, Latehar; conditions on attendance, non-threatening of witnesses and trial cooperation, with liberty to cancel bail on adverse report.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on regular bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar in connection with Latehar Mahila P.S. Case No. 11 of 2025. ¶14

Sonu Thakur Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:JHHC:5202

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 11832 of 2025

¶3

Sonu Thakur, aged about 19 years, S/o Somnath Thakur, R/o-Vill. Lali, P.O.-& P.S.-Manika, District-Latehar, Jharkhand. .... Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand.

¶6

.... Opp. Party

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶8

--------For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kr. Chaturvedi, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Naveen Kr. Ganjhu, A.P.P.

¶9

03/Dated:-20.02.2026

¶10

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

2. The instant bail application has been preferred by the petitioner for grant of regular bail for the offences registered under Section 70(1), 3(5) of BNS.

¶12

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and he has committed no offence as alleged in the F.I.R. He further submits that the petitioner was known to the victim and there is no evidence of recent sexual activity or injury mark found on medical examination of the victim. He further submits that the petitioner is having no criminal antecedents and the petitioner for no offence has been languishing in custody since 12.09.2025; as such, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. He submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by every condition as imposed by this court.

¶13

4. Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

¶14

5. Having regard to the facts of the case and after going through the Case Diary, especially, para 31 and that the petitioner is in custody since 12.09.2025; therefore, I am inclined to enlarge this petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar in connection with Latehar Mahila P.S. Case No. 11 of 2025.

¶15

6. It is made clear that the petitioner shall appear on each and every date before the learned trial court and he shall not threaten any witnesses and shall cooperate in trial and if any adverse report will come against this petitioner, learned trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of this petitioner.

¶16

FEBRUARY 20, 2026 vikas/uploaded 24.02.2026

¶17

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

Sonu Thakur v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Thakur v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabhat Kumar Yadav @ Prabhat Yadav @ Prabhat Ranjan Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pawan Bhuiyan Alias Pawan Bhuiya Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sakendra Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Navnit Yadav Alias Navneet Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Satyendra Lohra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sk. Azaharuddin Alias Sekh Azaruddin Vs the State of Jharkhand