Allowed

Rahul Singh Sardar v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC15 Sept 2026B.A./8605/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand granted bail to the petitioner, an accused in a quasi-police case involving offences under the B.N.S., 2023 and the Arms Act, with conditions regarding cooperation with the trial and contact information.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to be enlarged on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties and complying with specific conditions regarding trial cooperation and contact details.

Rahul Singh Sardar Vs State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:JHHC:27745] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.8605 of 2026

¶2

------

¶3

Rahul Singh Sardar, aged about 24 years, son of Late Pappu Singh Sardar, Resident of Dimna Basti, Jharkhand Colony, P.O.- M.G.M. Medical College, P.S.- Olidih, Town- Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum .... .... …. Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opposite Party

¶6

------

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶8

For the Petitioner	------ : Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Advocate
For the State For the Informant	: Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, Addl.P.P : Ms. Supriya Dayal, Advocate ------

¶9

Order No.02 Dated-15-09-2026

¶10

Heard the parties.

¶11

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Mango (Olidih) P.S. Case No.75 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under Section 118(2), 109(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner, along with the coaccused persons, attempted to murder Vikram Singh- the informant by firing upon him. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is further submitted that the main allegation is against the co-accused Krishna Singh @ Lalla whose prayer for bail has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.08.2026 passed in B.A. No.7894 of 2026 and specific allegation of firing upon the victim, is also upon the co-accused namely Vikash Mahato and Rahul and the only allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was also with the co-accused persons. It is further submitted that though the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. yet

¶13

without putting him on Test Identification Parade as has been mentioned in paragraph-14 of the instant bail application, chargesheet has been submitted against the petitioner but no witness has been examined as yet. It is then submitted that the petitioner undertakes that he will co-operate with the trial of the case and that he will not annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 01.04.2026 as has been mentioned in para21 of the instant bail application. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail.

¶14

Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the informant oppose the prayer for bail.

¶15

Considering the facts of this case, the above-named petitioner is directed to be enlarged 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, Jamshedpur in connection with Mango (Olidih) P.S. Case No.75 of 2026 with the condition that he will co-operate with the trial of the case, furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card in the court below with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the trial of the case and will not annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case.

¶16

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶17

Dated-15.09.2026-Animesh/

Rahul Singh Sardar v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Singh Sardar v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases