Allowed

Ram Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC16 Sept 2026B.A./6090/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand allowed the petitioner's third application for regular bail under the BNSS, 2023, relying on the principle of parity because a co-accused with similar antecedents had been granted bail by a coordinate bench.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of the same amount to the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bokaro.

Ram Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

2026:JHHC:28042

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 6090 of 2026

¶3

------

¶4

Ram Kumar aged about 30 years, son of Late Jagdish Beldar @ Jagdish Nonia, resident of P.S.T. 2 No. Ground, P.O-Sijua, P.S-Tetulmari, District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand)

¶5

…………… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ..............Opposite Party

¶6

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶8

------For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate Mr. Pratyush, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, Spl.PP

¶9

Order No.06/ Dated:16^th September, 2026

¶10

1. The instant bail application under section 483 and 484 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in connection with Sessions Trial No.250 of 2025 arising out of Chandankiyari P.S Case No.195 of 2024, corresponding to G.R. Case No.321 of 2025 registered for the offence under sections 303(2), 324(4), 324(5), 111, 112(2), 61(2), 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and section 3/6 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bokaro.

¶11

2. It has been submitted by Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that this is the third round of the application made by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail, since, in the first round of the application for regular bail, the same was rejected vide order dated 08.09.2025 passed in B.A. No.2825 of 2025 by a coordinate Bench of this Court and in the second round of the application, the same was also rejected vide order dated 25.02.2026 passed by this Court in B.A No.602 of 2026.

¶12

3. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the prayer for regular bail is being renewed on the ground of custody and parity, since, identically placed co-accused person, namely, Ram Kumar @ Ram Kumar Sao has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court

¶13

¶14

2026:JHHC:28042

¶15

vide order dated 08.04.2026 passed in B.A No.12073 of 2025 and the case of the present petitioner is identical to the case of the said coaccused person.

¶16

4. The further argument has been advanced that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 20.12.2024 and the trial has already commenced in which altogether 09 witnesses have already been examined and 08 witnesses are still to be examined.

¶17

5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, on the aforesaid ground as also on the ground of parity, has submitted that the present petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

¶18

6. While on the other hand, Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, the learned Spl.PP appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. He has contended that there is direct complicity of the present petitioner in the alleged crime as at his instance incriminating material, like, ATM machine, trolley etc. have been recovered. It has further been contended that the petitioner is having criminal antecedent of like nature.

¶19

7. In response thereto, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the co-accused, namely, Ram Kumar @ Ram Kumar Sao is also having criminal antecedent of like nature as of the present petitioner who has been granted privilege of regular bail vide order dated 08.04.2026 passed in B.A No.12073 of 2025.

¶20

8. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the imputation made in the FIR, the case diary as well as the criminal antecedent of the petitioner.

¶21

9. This Court is conscious with the fact that earlier the bail application of the present petitioner was rejected twice vide order dated 08.09.2025 passed in B.A. No.2825 of 2025 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and in the second round of the application, the bail application was also rejected vide order dated 25.02.2026 passed by this Court in B.A No.602 of 2026.

¶22

10. It is admitted case that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 20.12.2024. It is also not in dispute that the identically placed coaccused person, namely, Ram Kumar @ Ram Kumar Sao has been granted regular bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court as referred

¶23

¶24

2026:JHHC:28042

¶25

hereinabove. It is also not in dispute that the trial has also commenced in which 10 witnesses have already been examined.

¶26

11. Taking into consideration the fact that the co-accused person having criminal antecedent of like nature has already been extended benefit of regular bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court as also the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 20.12.2024, therefore, this Court is of the view that the instant bail application deserves to be allowed on the ground of parity, [“Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement” (2023) SCC On Line SC 1486 ].

¶27

12. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands allowed.

¶28

13. In consequence thereof, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bokaro in connection with Sessions Trial No.250 of 2025 arising out of Chandankiyari P.S Case No.195 of 2024, corresponding to G.R. Case No.321 of 2025, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall not absent himself on the date fixed without any cogent cause. In failure, the learned trial Court shall have liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law so that trial be not hindered.

¶29

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶30

Dated:16.09.2026 Sudhir

¶31

Ram Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases