Allowed

Suman Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC15 Sept 2026B.A./8593/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under sections 111(2)(b), 111(3), 111(4) of the BNS 2023 and provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, the court enlarged the petitioner on bail requiring a bond, sureties, and conditions regarding witness interference.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on furnishing bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties of like amount each, with conditions to cooperate with trial and not disturb witnesses.

Suman Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

( 2026:JHHC:27873 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8593 of 2026

¶2

Suman Kumar, Aged 23 years, S/o –Surendra Ray, R/o – Mahnar Tarn, Ward No. 15, P.O. & P.S. –Mahnar, Dist. – Vaishali, Bihar.

¶3

… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

¶4

------

¶5

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶6

For the Petitioner : Mr. Dilip Kr. Saw, Advocate : Ms. Arti Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.K. Chatterjee, Spl. P.P.

¶7

------

¶8

Order No.02 Dated- 15.09.2026

¶9

Heard the parties.

¶10

The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Namkum P.S. Case No.202 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under sections 111(2)(b), 111(3), 111(4) of the B.N.S., 2023, Section 11(1)(d)(e) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Section 12(1), 12(2), 12(3) of the Jharkhand Bovine Animals (Prohibition of Slaughter) Act, 2005.

¶11

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was involved in transportation of bovine animals for their slaughtering illegally. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is next submitted that the petitioner was the driver of the vehicle concerned but he has no knowledge that the bovine animals were illegally transported. It is then submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in para –21 of the bail application. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 01.08.2026, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 20 of the bail application. It is further submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the trial of the case and further undertakes that he will not annoy or disturb

¶12

the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.

¶13

The learned Spl. P.P. opposes the prayer for bail.

¶14

Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am inclined to enlarge the above-named petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate -1^st Class, Ranchi, in connection with Namkum P.S. Case No.202 of 2026 with the condition that the petitioner will co-operate with the trial of the case and will furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the trial of the case, with further condition that he will not annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case.

¶15

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶16

15.09.2026 Sonu/

Suman Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suman 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