Dismissed

Amit Kumar Sahu v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC14 Sept 2026A.B.A./5143/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand rejected an application for anticipatory bail filed by two petitioners. The petitioners were accused under various sections of the IPC. The Court noted that their first bail application was rejected on merits in 2022, and the current application was dismissed due to criminal antecedents and allegations of extortion.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for anticipatory bail rejected. Application dismissed.

Amit Kumar Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:JHHC:27696]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 5143 of 2026

¶3

Amit Kumar Sahu, aged about 22 years, son of

¶4

Mahendra Sahu;

¶5

Rajmohan Kumar Sahu, aged about 26 years, son of Gopal Sahu;

¶6

Both residents of Hocher, P.O.-Husir, P.S.- Kanke,

District- Ranchi.

..... … Petitioners

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

¶11

..... … Opposite Party

¶12

-------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI -----For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Someshwar Roy, A.P.P. ------

¶13

06/ 14.09.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P for the State.

¶14

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Kanke P.S. Case No. 248 of 2022, registered for the offence under Sections 147, 341, 323, 324, 307, 385, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-XIII, Ranchi.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. He next submits that earlier these petitioners have also moved before the learned Sessions Judge in A.B.P. No. 2875 of 2022, however, the same was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. He further submits that thereafter the other co-accused persons have been granted regular bail and after that these petitioners have also moved before the learned Sessions judge in A.B.P. No. 1781 of 2026, however, the same has also been rejected only on the ground that the second application was successive anticipatory bail application. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be provided to the petitioners.

¶16

-1-

¶17

[2026:JHHC:27696]

¶18

Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer and submits that the allegations are there of demanding the extortion and the petitioner No. 1 is having the criminal antecedent. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected.

¶19

Considering that the first A.B.P. was rejected on merits in the year 2022 and after granting of the regular bail to other co-accused persons, these petitioners have again moved before the learned court with a prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, however, the same has again been rejected and further petitioner No. 1 is having the criminal antecedent and also the allegations are there of making extortion and in the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, above named. Accordingly, their prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.

¶20

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶21

Dated:-14.09.2026 Amitesh/-

¶22

-2-

Amit Kumar Sahu v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar Sahu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases