Allowed

MD Sahul @ MD Saul @ Imran v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC21 Apr 2026B.A./3325/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application by an accused in a jewellery shop theft case registered under Sections 305 and 331(4) BNS, 2023. Court noted custody since 28.02.2026 and no criminal antecedent, and granted bail with conditions to cooperate with trial.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on Rs.25,000 bond with two sureties, subject to cooperation with trial and furnishing mobile number and Aadhaar copy.

MD Sahul @ MD Saul @ Imran Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:JHHC:11697] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.3325 of 2026

¶2

------

¶3

Md. Sahul @ Md Saul @ Imran aged about 29 years, Son of late Md. Sultan Resident of Mangachak, Post Office- Mangachak, Police Station- Sanhoula, District- Bhagalpur, State-Bihar.

¶4

.... .... …. Petitioner

¶5

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

¶6

------

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶8

------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Anup Kr. Agarwal, Advocate Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, Addl.P.P ------

¶9

Order No.02 Dated- 21-04-2026

¶10

Heard the parties.

¶11

The petitioner has been made accused in connection Mahagama P.S. Case No.33 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 305, 331(4) B.N.S., 2023.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed theft of jewellery from the jewellery shop of the informant. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. The petitioner has been implicated in this case only on the basis of confessional statement and nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. It is next submitted that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-19. It is then submitted that the petitioner undertakes that he will co-operate with the trial of the case. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 28.02.2026 as mentioned in para07 of instant bail application. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail.

¶13

Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for

¶14

bail.

¶15

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

¶16

to the satisfaction of learned J.M., 1^st Class, Godda in connection with Mahagama P.S. Case No.33 of 2026 with the condition that they will cooperate with the trial of the case and furnish their mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card in the court below with an undertaking that they will not change their mobile number during the trial of the

¶17

case .

¶18

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶19

21/04/2026 Amar/

MD Sahul @ MD Saul @ Imran v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

MD Sahul @ MD Saul @ Imran v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pawan Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pradeep Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Subhan Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jasim Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mohan Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Samsul Shekh @ Samshul Shekh Vs State of Jharkhand