Allowed¶22

Vishal Sharma @ Vishal Kumar Sharma v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC22 Jul 2026B.A./5221/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: regular bail; Section 69 BNS; Keredari P.S. Case No. 41/2026; JMFC Hazaribagh; High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary; delay in lodging FIR (incident 27.09.2023, FIR 03.02.2026); charge-sheet submitted; no criminal antecedent; custody since 06.04.2026; bail bond Rs. 25,000 with two like sureties; pairvikar as bailor; close relative as bailor; bail cancellation on single default; Aadhar Card and mobile number deposit condition; informant absent despite notice; bail application allowed.

What did the court decide?

Enlargement of petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, subject to conditions (i) to (v). ¶22

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Enlargement of petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, subject to conditions (i) to (v).

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, in custody in connection with Keredari P.S. Case No. 41/2026 registered under Section 69 of BNS and pending before the learned JMFC, Hazaribagh, should be enlarged on bail.

¶9

Court's answer

Petitioner directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty-Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned JMFC, Hazaribagh in connection with Keredari P.S. Case No. 41/2026.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

Bail granted considering the facts and circumstances, including that the charge-sheet had already been submitted and that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

¶16

Key takeaways

Bail made subject to conditions, inter alia, that one bailor be the petitioner's present pairvikar, the other a close relative, and that the petitioner attend the court on each and every date, on whose single default the learned court shall cancel the bail bond furnished by him.ratio¶19
Further condition that the petitioner deposit a self-attested copy of his Aadhar Card along with his Mobile Number before the learned court below, not to be changed during the pendency of the case without prior permission of the court.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail Application Allowed — Offence under Section 69 of BNS (Keredari P.S. Case No. 41/2026). High Court of Jharkhand (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) allowed B.A. No. 5221 of 2026 and directed that the petitioner, in custody since 06.04.2026 before the learned JMFC, Hazaribagh, be enlarged on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each. Grounds: charge-sheet already submitted and petitioner having no criminal antecedent; the Court also noted that the initial incident was of 27.09.2023 while the FIR was lodged on 03.02.2026 (unexplained delay urged by counsel). Stringent conditions imposed: one bailor to be the petitioner's present pairvikar and the other a close relative; attendance on each and every date with cancellation of the bail bond even on a single default; deposit of a self-attested copy of the Aadhar Card along with mobile number, not to be changed during pendency without prior court permission; and full co-operation with proceedings below. Informant did not enter appearance despite service of notice.

¶1

2026:JHHC:21592

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

B.A. No. 5221 of 2026

¶4

Vishal Sharma @ Vishal Kumar Sharma, Son of Rajendra Prasad Sharma … … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --For the Petitioner : Mr. Lalan Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Fahad Allam, Advocate ---

¶8

05/22^nd July 2026

¶9

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Keredari P.S. Case No. 41/2026 for the offence registered under Section 69 of BNS, now said to have been pending in the court of learned JMFC, Hazaribagh.

¶10

2. In spite of service of notice, the informant has not entered appearance.

¶11

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and as per the FIR itself, the petitioner and the victim developed some intimacy and the petitioner took her to his house on 27.09.2023 and on that day, nobody was there in the house of the petitioner and he forcibly established physical relationship with the victim. It has further been stated in the FIR that on 19.01.2026, when the victim met the petitioner, he told her that he would marry her and ultimately when she went to the house of the petitioner with her entire family, he was not available and she came to know that the petitioner was going to marry to someone else. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody since 06.04.2026 and the charge-sheet has already been submitted.

¶12

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner.

¶13

¶14

2026:JHHC:21592

¶15

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the initial incident is of 27.09.2023 and prior to that, the petitioner and the victim develops certain intimacy and the victim had gone to the house of the petitioner where the alleged incident has occurred. The FIR has been lodged on 03.02.2026.

¶16

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also the fact that the charge-sheet has already been submitted and that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent, the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty-Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned JMFC, Hazaribagh in connection with Keredari P.S. Case No. 41/2026, subject to the following conditions: -

¶17

(i) One of the bailors would be the present pairvikar of the petitioner.

¶18

(ii) The other bailor should be his close relative.

¶19

(iii) The petitioner will attend the court on each and every date and on account of his single default, the learned court shall cancel the bail bond furnished by the petitioner.

¶20

(iv) The petitioner would deposit a self-attested copy of his Aadhar Card along with his Mobile Number before the learned court below, which he shall not change during the pendency of the case without prior permission of the court.

¶21

(v) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the proceedings before the learned court below.

¶22

7. The instant bail application is allowed with the aforesaid conditions.

¶23

8. Let a copy of this order along with a copy of the affidavit filed with the bail petition be communicated to the court concerned through ‘email/FAX’.

¶24

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶25

Dated: 22.07.2026

¶26

Uploaded On: 23.07.2026

¶27

Mukul/-

¶28

Vishal Sharma @ Vishal Kumar Sharma v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal Sharma @ Vishal Kumar Sharma v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tinku Das @ Tinku Kumar Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Amit Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

Nandan Kamar Alias Abhishek Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand through a.C.B.(Vigilance)

Pawan Das @ Pawan Kumar Das Vs State of Jharkhand

Sneh Lata Tigga Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/Principal Secretary

Rishikesh Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand