Dismissed¶13

Rahul Kumar Sharma v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC11 May 2026B.A./3634/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail rejected — second journey bail application; custody duration alone not sufficient ground after on-merit rejection; charge framed meanwhile. Offences: sections 395/412 IPC and Section (25(1B)a/26/35 Arms Act; S.T. Case No. 58 of 2025; Sonari P.S. Case No. 68 of 2024. Prior rejection: order dated 04.11.2025 in B.A. No. 7769 of 2025. Petitioner: Rahul Kumar Sharma (District Palamau). Court: High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; Judge: Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.; order dated 11.05.2026. Counsel: Rakesh Kumar (petitioner); Rakesh Ranjan, Addl. P.P. (State).

What did the court decide?

Since the petitioner's earlier bail prayer was already rejected on merit, merely because he has remained in custody for some more time is not a sufficient ground to admit him to bail. ¶11

Rahul Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

( 2026:JHHC:14234 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3634 of 2026

¶2

Rahul Kumar Sharma, aged about 27 years, Son of Ashok Sharma, Resident of Village –Kankari, P.O. & P.S. –Chainpur, Kankari, District –Palamau (Jharkhand)

¶3

… Petitioner

¶4

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

¶5

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Addl. P.P. ------

¶6

Order No.03 Dated- 11.05.2026

¶7

Heard the parties.

¶8

The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with S.T. Case No. 58 of 2025 arising out of Sonari P.S. Case No.68 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under sections 395/412 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section (25(1B)a/26/35 of the Arms Act.

¶9

This is the second journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail and earlier the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was rejected on merit vide order dated 04.11.2025 in B.A. No. 7769 of 2025. It is next submitted that the fresh ground is that in the meanwhile, charge has been framed and the petitioner has been in custody for some more time. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.

¶10

The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that merely because the petitioner has remained in custody for some more time is not a sufficient ground to review the prayer for bail of the petitioner which was earlier rejected on merit. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be admitted to bail.

¶11

Considering the fact that the prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected on merit, this Court if of the considered view that merely because the petitioner has remained in custody for

¶12

some more time is not a sufficient ground to admit the petitioner on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail of the above-named petitioners is rejected for the same reasons as mentioned in the order dated 04.11.2025 in B.A. No. 7769 of 2025.

¶14

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶15

11.05.2026 Sonu/

Rahul Kumar Sharma v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Kumar Sharma 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

Sona Mahto Vs State of Jharkhand

Victim Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Wasib Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jitendra Singh @ Bajrangi Ji Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bholu Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mustkim @ Murtza Ansari @ Mustkin Ansari Vs State of Jharkhand