Allowed

Sakunder Nayak v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC14 Sept 2026A.B.A./5135/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application for anticipatory bail was filed by two petitioners. The High Court noted names appeared in the confessional statement but not the FIR, with co-accused already granted bail. The court allowed anticipatory bail subject to surrender within three weeks on specific bond conditions.

What did the court decide?

Directs petitioners to surrender within three weeks and grants release on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.25,000 with two sureties.

Sakunder Nayak Vs the State of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

2026:JHHC:27697

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI A.B.A. No. 5135 of 2026

¶3

----

¶4

1. Sakunder Nayak, aged about 32 years, son of Late Chandan Nayak

¶5

2. Vijay Nayak, aged about 42 years, son of Sukra Nayak,

¶6

Both are residents of village – Patrapali, Targa, PO – Targa, PS – Jaldega (Bansjore O.P.), District – Simdega, State - Jharkhand

¶7

.... Petitioners

¶8

-- Versus --

¶9

The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party

¶10

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶12

For the Petitioners	:-	--- Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State	:-	Mr. Naveen Kumar Ganjhu, Advocate
		----

¶13

02 /14.09.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as

¶14

the learned counsel appearing for the State.

¶15

2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Jaldega P.S. (Bansjor O.P.) Case No. 67 of 2025, registered under sections 126(2), 127(2), 115 (2), 117 (2), 121(1), 121(2), 109, 303(2), 132, 352, 351(2) of BNS, 2023, pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M, Simdega.

¶16

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are not named in F.I.R and their name has come in the confessional statement. He next submits that allegations are made against 14 named persons and 20-25 unknown persons of reaching to the Dhaba and making hooliganism. He next submits that two of the named co-accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail in A.B.A (Filing) No. 10707 of 2026. He next submits that for the same incident two F.I.Rs have been

¶17

lodged. He also submits that the petitioners have got no criminal

¶18

--1--

¶19

A.B.A. No. 5135 of 2026

¶20

2026:JHHC:27697

¶21

antecedent as disclosed in paragraph No.13 of the petition. He also submits that in identical situation co-accused person has already been granted anticipatory bail in A.B.A. No.5027 of 2026. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted.

¶22

4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that the name of the petitioners has come in the confessional statement.

¶23

5. The petitioners are not named in F.I.R and their name has come in the confessional statement and two of the named co-accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail in A.B.A (Filing) No. 10707 of 2026 and it has been pointed out that for the same incident two F.I.Rs have been lodged and in identical situation co-accused person has already been granted anticipatory bail in the aforesaid A.B.A., I am inclined to provide anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶24

6. Accordingly, the petitioners, above named, are hereby directed to surrender before the learned Court within three weeks from today, and in the event of their surrender/arrest, the petitioners, above named, shall be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each, with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M, Simdega in connection with Jaldega P.S. (Bansjor O.P.) Case No. 67 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

¶25

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶26

Dated 14.09.2026 Sangam/

¶27

--2--

¶28

A.B.A. No. 5135 of 2026

Sakunder Nayak v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sakunder Nayak 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