Dismissed¶¶14

Fuldev Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC16 Jun 2026B.A./5314/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi; B.A. No. 5314 of 2026; Fuldev Singh v. The State of Jharkhand; second regular bail application rejected; bail to co-accused on different footing held not a sufficient ground to review earlier on-merit rejection; Giridih (T) P.S. Case No. 420 of 2013; sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 IPC; earlier rejection order dated 17.04.2026 in B.A. No. 2858 of 2026; risk of absconding and tampering with evidence; Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary; order dated 16.06.2026.

What did the court decide?

The mere fact that the petitioner has remained in custody for some more time, and that a co-accused against whom the allegation stands on a different footing was granted bail, is not a sufficient ground to review the prayer for regular bail which has earlier been rejected on merit. ¶¶13

Fuldev Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner should be admitted to regular bail in connection with Giridih (T) P.S. Case No. 420 of 2013 when his earlier regular bail prayer was already rejected on merit and the only fresh ground urged is that a co-accused person has been granted bail.

¶¶10

Ratio / Principle

¶¶13

Key takeaways

Considering the serious nature of the allegation against the petitioner and the chance of his absconding and tampering with evidence if released on bail, the Court was not inclined to admit the prayer for bail.ratio¶¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second regular bail application (B.A. No. 5314 of 2026) of Fuldev Singh, aged about 70 years, in connection with Giridih (T) P.S. Case No. 420 of 2013, registered for offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. His earlier prayer for regular bail had been rejected on merit vide order dated 17.04.2026 passed in B.A. No. 2858 of 2026; the only fresh ground urged was that a co-accused person had been granted bail. The Additional P.P. opposed, submitting that the co-accused's allegation stood on a different footing and that, given the direct and serious allegations against the petitioner, there was every chance of his absconding and tampering with evidence. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary held that the petitioner's longer period in custody, together with bail granted to a co-accused standing on a different footing, was not a sufficient ground to review a bail prayer already rejected on merit, and rejected the bail prayer for the same reasons as mentioned in the order dated 17.04.2026 in B.A. No. 2858 of 2026. Order No. 02 dated 16.06.2026.

¶1

(2026:JHHC:17326) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 5314 of 2026

¶2

Fuldev Singh, aged about 70 years, son of late Guhi Singh, resident of village – Chunglo, PO – Gadi Islampur, PS – Giridih (M), District - Giridih. … … …Petitioner

¶3

Versus The State of Jharkhand. … … …Opp. Party

¶4

For the Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Kr. Roy, Advocate For the State : Ms. Anuradha Sahay, Addl. P.P. ------

¶5

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶6

Order No:- 02, Dated:- 16^th June, 2026

¶7

Heard the parties.

¶8

This is the second journey of the petitioner for grant of regular bail.

¶9

Earlier, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of regular bail was rejected on merit.

¶10

The petitioner has moved before this Court for grant of bail in connection with Giridih (T) P.S. Case No. 420 of 2013, registered for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the prayer of the petitioner for grant of regular bail of the petitioner was rejected on merit vide order dated 17.04.2026 and the only fresh ground is that the co-accused person has been granted bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.

¶11

The learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the allegation against the co-accused person who has been granted bail, stands on different footing. It is next submitted that in view of the direct allegation of serious nature against the petitioner and as the prayer of the petitioner for regular bail has already been rejected on merit, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the

¶12

evidence, if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not be admitted to bail.

¶13

Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence, if released on bail, as well as the fact that the prayer for bail of the petitioner has already been rejected on merit, this Court is of the considered view that the mere fact is that the petitioner has remained in custody for some more time, and the co-accused the allegation against whom stands on different footing was granted bail, is not a sufficient ground to review the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner which has earlier been rejected on merit, therefore, this Court is not inclined to admit the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

¶14

Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected for the same reasons as mentioned in the order dated 17.04.2026 passed in B.A. No. 2858 of 2026 .

¶15

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶16

Dated – 16.06.2026 Aditi

Fuldev Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fuldev Singh 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

Kali Charan Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mir Abed Alias Dilu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nagendra Paswan @ Nagendra Kumar Paswan Alias Shubham Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Santosh Kumar Alias Horil Bhuiyan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Karma Kachhap Alias Anil Kachhap Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Farid Alias Farid Vs the State of Jharkhand