Allowed¶12

Sanoj Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC20 Feb 2026B.A./161/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sanoj Kumar regular bail granted; B.A. No. 161 of 2026; High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; Justice Rajesh Shankar; order dated 20.02.2026; Pirtand P.S. Case No. 42 of 2019; CJM Giridih; IPC Sections 467, 468, 272, 273, 420, 120-B, 34; Excise Act Sections 47(a), 55; IMFL 80 cartons 720 litres; Bolero pick-up JH-09-AC-4230; Akash Kumar Pandey driver; Anand Kumar helper; falsely implicated; no criminal antecedent; judicial custody since 07.11.2025; bail bond Rs.20,000 with two sureties; Pran Pranay advocate; Sudhir Kumar Mahto A.P.P.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on regular bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih in connection with Pirtand P.S. Case No. 42 of 2019. ¶12

Sanoj Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

2026:JHHC:5151

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 161 of 2026

¶3

Sanoj Kumar, S/o Shivnath Ram, R/o Dundibag Bazar, PO-Sector-II, P.SBokaro Steel City, Bokaro … … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. Pran Pranay, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Mahto, A.P.P. -----

¶8

02/20.02.2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶9

2. The petitioner is an accused in the case for the offences punishable under Sections 467/468/272/273/420/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 47(a)/55 of the Excise Act.

¶10

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. There is alleged recovery of 80 cartons of IMFL each containing 9 litres (Total 720 litres) from the Bolero pick-up vehicle bearing registration No. JH-09-AC-4230. The petitioner has been implicated in this case on the alleged confessional statement of Akash Kumar Pandey – the driver and Anand Kumar – the helper of the said vehicle as the person on whose instruction the liquors were being transported. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as has been stated in paragraph-15 of the present bail application. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 07.11.2025 and hence, he may be given the privilege of regular bail.

¶11

4. Learned A.P.P. opposes the petitioner’s prayer for bail.

¶12

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner above named is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of

¶13

¶14

2026:JHHC:5151

¶15

Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih in connection with Pirtand P.S. Case No. 42 of 2019.

¶16

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶17

February 20, 2026 Manish

¶18

Uploaded on 20.02.2026

¶19

Sanoj Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanoj Kumar 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

Khushilal Mahto Vs State of Jharkhand

Sulekha Kumari Vs Central Coalfields Ltd.

M/S Basant Stone Works (Gstin 20AALFM5467EIZE) through Its Proprietor Dinu Babu Vs Union of India through Its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance

Sukhmay Modi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ravindra Yadav Alias Ravindra Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bimal Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand