Sujit Kumar Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand

[ 2026:JHHC:11013 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3066 of 2026

------

Sujit Kumar Sinha, aged about 49 years, Son of Sahadev Lal, Resident of Village- Maheshamunda, P.O. – Maheshamunda, P.S.Gandey, District- Giridih, Jharkhand- 815312

¶5

.... .... …. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party

¶8

-----CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶9

------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate Mr. Arpan Manjash Ekka, Advocate Mr. Shivam Anand Pathak, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl.P.P. For the Informant : Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate

¶10

------

¶11

Order No:-04 Dated:-16-04-2026

¶12

Heard the parties.

¶13

Learned counsel for the informant files the Vakalatnama. Let the same be kept in the record.

¶14

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Gandey P.S. Case No. 56 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(2), 338, 336(3), 3(5) of B.N.S.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner told the informant that he is a real estate businessman and the co-accused Mahendra Prasad Verma and Yogeshwar Prasad Kushwaha entered into an agreement after taking Rs. 13,11,000/- from the informant posing themselves to be the power of attorney holder of the land owner even though in the agreement it was mentioned that they have also entered into an agreement for sale with the land owner. It is further alleged that subsequently they altogether took Rs. 27,11,000 and Rs. 10,00,000/was spend for carrying out different kinds of work on the land concerned, but did not transfer the land. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations are false. It is next submitted that there is no allegation of entrustment of any

¶16

money to the petitioner. It is next submitted that the dispute between the parties is at its best a civil dispute. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as is evident from para-11 of the instant bail application. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 21.02.2026 as is evident from para-1 of the instant bail application. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the trial of the case and also undertakes not to annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

¶18

Considering the facts of this case, the above-named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/(Rupees twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned JMFC, Giridih in connection with Gandey P.S. Case No. 56 of 2025 with the condition that he will co-operate with the trial of the case and furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card in the court below with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the trial of the case and he will not annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case.

¶19

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶20

Dated:- 16.04.2026 Vedanti/

Sujit Kumar Sinha v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujit Kumar Sinha 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

Ram Chandra Giri Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sangeeta Devi Vs State of Jharkhand

Prince Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arpit Arnav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sudhir Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

Saheb Singh Alias Sabi Vs the State of Jharkhand