Dismissed¶13

Kailash Kumar Das v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC14 Jul 2026B.A./4990/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail rejected — Kailash Kumar Das (aged about 19), custody since 31.10.2025, Chandankiyari P.S. Case No. 83 of 2025 / S.T. No. 127 of 2026, Sections 77 & 79 B.N.S. 2023 and Section 67 IT (Amendment) Act 2000, Additional Sessions Judge-IV Bokaro; charge framed 08.04.2026, one witness examined; victim aged 14; vulgar videos via instagram; directions to produce remaining witnesses and FSL report and to communicate order to SP, Director Prosecution and trial court; Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.; dated 14.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

Considering the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner in connection with a victim aged 14 years and that the trial is already in progress, the Court was not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail; his prayer for bail stands rejected. ¶13

Kailash Kumar Das Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, in custody since 31.10.2025 in Chandankiyari P.S. Case No. 83 of 2025 (S.T. No. 127 of 2026) with the trial already in progress, should be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Court's answer

¶13

Ratio / Principle

Learned counsel for the State directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses and the FSL Report, if any, are promptly produced before the court concerned.

¶15

Key takeaways

Order directed to be communicated to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district and the Director, Prosecution for compliance.ratio¶16
Order to be communicated to the concerned court through FAX/e-mail.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail application (B.A. No. 4990 of 2026, decided 14.07.2026) by Kailash Kumar Das (aged about 19) for regular bail in Chandankiyari P.S. Case No. 83 of 2025 (S.T. No. 127 of 2026), Sections 77 and 79 of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 67 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2000, pending before learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Bokaro. In custody since 31.10.2025; charge framed 08.04.2026; only one witness examined. Defence claimed false implication, stating the network used stood in the name of landlord Somnath Das and the LAN password was given to the petitioner for studies; the State opposed, citing recovered vulgar videos allegedly made viral through instagram accounts, concerning a victim aged 14 years. Considering the seriousness of the allegations and that the trial was already in progress, the Court rejected the prayer for bail, while directing prompt production of the remaining witnesses and the FSL report, and communication of the order to the concerned Superintendent of Police, the Director, Prosecution and the concerned court through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶1

2026:JHHC:20873

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 4990 of 2026

¶3

Kailash Kumar Das, aged about 19 years, Son of Ajit Das

¶4

The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party

¶5

--- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶6

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mrs. Jasvindar Majumdar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, APP

¶8

¶9

04 /14.07.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

¶10

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 31.10.2025 in connection with ChandankiyariP.S. Case No. 83 of 2025 (S.T. No. 127 of 2026)for the offences registered under Sections 77 and 79 of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 67 of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2000, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Bokaro.

¶11

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is in custody since 31.10.2025 and the charge has been framed on 08.04.2026 and only one witness has been examined so far. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. She has further stated that actually the networkwhich was utilizedwas in the name of Somnath Das who was the landlord and the password of the LAN was given to the petitioner for the purpose of studies.

¶12

4. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that numerous vulgar videos have been recovered and the mobile was used and instagram account was also used to make the videos viral. It has been alleged that different instagram accounts were used to make the video viral.

¶13

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the seriousness of allegation made against the petitioner in connection with the victim aged 14 years and the trial is already in progress, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

¶14

2026:JHHC:20873

¶15

6. However, the learned counsel for the State is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses and FSL Report, if any, are promptly produced before the court concerned.

¶16

7. Learned counsel for the State is also directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district and the Director, Prosecution for compliance.

¶17

8. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through FAX/e-mail.

¶18

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶19

Dated: 14.07.2026 Uploaded on 15.07.2026

¶20

Pramanik/

¶21

Kailash Kumar Das v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailash Kumar Das 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

Ansul Arif Alias Asnul Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nirmal Oraon Vs State of Jharkhand

Manish Tudu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lakhan Singh Hembrom Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manjit Toppo Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kawaldi Das Vs State of Jharkhand