Allowed

Sudama Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC15 Sept 2026B.A./7875/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under BNSS and Dowry Prohibition Act, the High Court of Jharkhand allowed the petitioner's prayer for bail subject to conditions including bail bond deposit, specific sureties, and appearance before the trial court.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is enlarged on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties and complying with conditions including court appearance and non-interference.

Sudama Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

( 2026:JHHC:27858 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7875 of 2026

¶3

Sudama Kumar aged about 28 years son of Santosh Pandit @ Santosh Kumar, resident of village Lal Bandh, Telo Paschim, P.O. Telo, P.S. Nawadih, District Bokaro. … … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

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

¶6

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶7

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mahatha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Fahad Allam, A.P.P. For the informant : Mr. Nishant Kumar Roy, Advocate ---

¶9

05 /15.09.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

¶10

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 16.05.2026, in connection with Bermo (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 02 of 2025, for the offences registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 85, 352, 3(5) of the B.N.S. 2023 and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat.

¶11

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner happens to be the husband of the victim and the case has been registered for the offence under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 85, 352, 3(5) of the B.N.S. 2023 2023 and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He has submitted that there is allegation of torture and dowry. He further submits that there is also allegation that the petitioner had purchased a motorcycle by taking loan in the name of the victim by misusing his Aadhar Card. He submits that charge sheet has already been submitted.

¶12

4. The learned counsel for the informant and the State have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner has two criminal antecedent but during the course of argument it transpired that none of the criminal antecedent relate any torture and demand against the petitioner by the victim. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been enlarged on bail in those cases. The learned counsel for the informant has also submitted that since the loan has been fraudulently taken in the name of his wife therefore notice for

¶13

( 2026:JHHC:27858 )

¶14

recovery was issued in her name and ultimately, she filed the case alleging the entire incident which has taken place regarding torture and demand.

¶15

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that charge sheet has already been submitted, the petitioner above named is directed to be enlarged on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty-five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat, in connection with Bermo (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 02 of 2025, on the following conditions:

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

(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.

¶19

(iv) The petitioner will deposit a self-attested copy of his Aadhar Card along with his mobile number before the learned court which he will not change during the pendency of the case without prior permission of the court.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶24

Dated: 15.09.2026 Uploaded on 17.09.2026 / Binit/

¶25

Sudama Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudama 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases