Allowed¶24

Saim Sekh Alias Saim Shekh Alias Shamim Alias Shamim Shekh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC24 Feb 2026Cr.A(DB)/205/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail granted, Jharkhand High Court, Cr. A. (DB) No. 205 of 2026, 2026:JHHC:5389-DB, Saim Sekh @ Sain Shekh @ Shamim @ Shamim Shekh, fake currency notes recovery, Tapkara P.S. Case No. 12 of 2025, B.P. No.262 of 2025, Dist. and Addl. Sessions Judge-I Khunti, custody since 14.09.2025, no criminal antecedent, bail bonds Rs.10,000/-, two sureties of like amount, S.D.J.M. Khunti, decided 24.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

Appellant directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned S.D.J.M., Khunti; the order dated 19.01.2026 rejecting bail was set aside. ¶24

Saim Sekh Alias Saim Shekh Alias Shamim Alias Shamim Shekh Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant, in custody since 14.09.2025 on an allegation of possession of four fake currency notes, should be released on bail notwithstanding the rejection of his bail prayer by the learned Dist. and Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Khunti.

¶18

Court's answer

Regard being had to the period of custody undergone by the appellant, the Division Bench set aside the order dated 19.01.2026 passed in B.P. No.262 of 2025 by the learned Dist. and Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Khunti, whereby the appellant's prayer for bail had been rejected.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The appellant was directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand).

¶18

Key takeaways

The release on bail was conditioned on furnishing two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned S.D.J.M., Khunti.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Jharkhand High Court (Division Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, JJ.), Cr. A. (DB) No. 205 of 2026, decided 24.02.2026 (2026:JHHC:5389-DB): Appeal by Saim Sekh @ Sain Shekh @ Shamim @ Shamim Shekh (aged about 19 years) against the order dated 19.01.2026 in B.P. No.262 of 2025, arising out of Tapkara P.S. Case No. 12 of 2025, by the learned Dist. and Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Khunti rejecting his prayer for bail. Allegation: the appellant was apprehended and four fake currency notes were recovered from his possession; appellant in custody since 14.09.2025, with counsel submitting that he has no criminal antecedent. Regard being had to the period of custody undergone by the appellant, the Court set aside the rejection order and directed the appellant to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned S.D.J.M., Khunti. Appeal allowed and disposed of.

¶1

2026:JHHC:5389-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. A. (DB) No. 205 of 2026

¶3

¶4

Saim Sekh @ Sain Shekh @ Shamim @ Shamim Shekh, aged about 19 years, S/o Md. Motiur Rahman, R/o-vill.- Alitola Udhwa, P.O.-Diyara, P.S.-Radhanagar, Dist. Sahebganj

¶5

... ... Appellant

¶6

Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Respondent

¶7

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶9

-------For the Appellant : Mr. Sunil Kumar Ganjhu, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl.P.P.

¶10

¶11

Order No. 02/ Dated: 24^th February, 2026

¶12

Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Ganjhu, learned counsel for the appellant

¶13

and learned Spl.P.P.

¶14

This appeal is directed against the order dated 19.01.2026 passed in B.P. No.262 of 2025, arising out of Tapkara P.S. Case No. 12 of 2025, by the learned Dist. and Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Khunti, whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected.

¶15

It has been alleged that the appellant was apprehended and four fake currency notes were recovered from his possession.

¶16

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is in custody since 14.09.2025. Learned counsel adds that the appellant does not have any criminal antecedent.

¶17

Learned Spl.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.

¶18

Regard being had to the period of custody undergone by the appellant, we while setting aside the order dated 19.01.2026 passed in B.P. No.262 of 2025, arising out of Tapkara P.S. Case No. 12 of 2025, by the learned Dist. and Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Khunti, direct the appellant to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees

¶19

¶20

Cr. A. (DB) No 205 of 2026

¶21

2026:JHHC:5389-DB

¶22

Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the

¶23

satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M, Khunti.

¶24