Dismissed¶7

Md. Shahzad Alam v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC11 Mar 2026B.A./141/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court bail application rejection; B.A. No. 141 of 2026; Md. Shahzad Alam v. State of Jharkhand; Bistupur P.S. Case No. 97 of 2025; Sections 420/388/406/419/386/120B IPC; Chief Judicial Magistrate Jamshedpur; custody since 26.08.2025; direct allegation of extortion from informant; money transferred from informant's bank account to petitioner's bank account; paragraph 52 case-diary; impugned judgment reference; Firdoush Bano relationship; WhatsApp chats outside case-diary; bail rejected 11.03.2026; order communicated by fax/email.

What did the court decide?

The Court found that there is direct allegation against the petitioner that he had also extorted money from the informant. ¶7

Md. Shahzad Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner should be enlarged on bail in connection with Bistupur P.S. Case No. 97 of 2025 (Sections 420/388/406/419/386/120B IPC), in view of the nature of the allegations and the supporting transaction evidence relied upon by the State.

¶7

Court's answer

The Court found that there is direct allegation against the petitioner that he had also extorted money from the informant.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

The Court found the direct allegation to be supported by the transaction of money from the bank account of the informant to the bank account of the petitioner.

¶7

Key takeaways

On the strength of the direct allegation and its transactional support, the Court was not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and rejected the bail application.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail application rejected — High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, B.A. No. 141 of 2026, decided 11.03.2026 by Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary. Petitioner Md. Shahzad Alam (custody since 26.08.2025) sought bail in Bistupur P.S. Case No. 97 of 2025, registered under Sections 420/388/406/419/386/120B IPC and pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur. Petitioner's counsel submitted that the petitioner, stated to be the 2nd husband of Firdoush Bano, was falsely implicated; that the informant had been giving money to Firdoush Bano by way of love and affection in a relationship between them; and that the FIR was instituted after that relationship came to the petitioner's knowledge; WhatsApp chat screenshots annexed to the application were said to be outside the case-diary. State counsel opposed, submitting there was direct allegation against the petitioner and that the amount taken by him in his bank account appeared at paragraph 52 of the case-diary and in the impugned judgment. The Court held that there was direct allegation of extortion by the petitioner against the informant, supported by transactions of money from the informant's bank account to the petitioner's bank account, declined to enlarge him on bail, and rejected the application; a copy of the order was directed to be communicated to the concerned court through fax/email.

¶1

2026:JHHC:6457

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

B.A. No. 141 of 2026

¶4

Md. Shahzad Alam, aged about 30 years, S/o Late Md Alim, R/oLawatu Niche Toli Village- Pundag, P.O.- Pundag & P.S.Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶5

… … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ---

¶6

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶7

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. Shadab Eqbal, Advocate : Mr. Mehul Raj, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Ms. Ruby Pandey, APP ---

¶9

03 /11.03.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

¶10

2. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State has filed counteraffidavit during the court proceedings which is taken on record.

¶11

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 26.08.2025 in connection with Bistupur P.S. Case No. 97 of 2025, registered under Sections 420/388/406/419/386/120B of Indian Penal Code, now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur.

¶12

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is the 2^nd husband of Firdoush Bano and as per the First Information Report, the informant has been giving money time and again to Firdoush Bano. He submits that there was certain relationship between the lady and the informant and the money was given to her by way of love and affection. He also submits that when the aforesaid relationship came to light of the petitioner, then the First Information Report has been instituted making false allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner had also extorted money from the informant along with Firdoush Bano.

¶13

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he has also referred to screenshot of certain whatsApp chats annexed with the bail application and submits that they are not part of the case-diary, but

¶14

2026:JHHC:6457

¶15

those materials have been filed along with the bail application for appreciation of the fact that Firdoush Bano had relationship with the informant of the case.

¶16

6. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner and the amount has also been taken by the petitioner in his bank account which has come in paragraph 52 of case-diary and is also mentioned in the impugned judgment.

¶17

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation and the fact that there is direct allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner had also extorted money from the informant and this is supported by the transaction of money from the bank account of the informant to the bank account of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected.

¶18

8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”.

¶19

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶20

Date of Order:11.03.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:11.03.2026

¶21

Md. Shahzad Alam v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Shahzad Alam v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramdev Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Parveen Kumar @Praveen Ray Vs State of Jharkhand

MD Murad Vs State of Jharkhand

Naveen Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Harshit Raj Alias Harshit Raj Singh Alias Neta Baccha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Akhilesh Yadav Alias Butan Manjhi Alias Gautam Jee Vs the State of Jharkhand