Krishna Kumar Mahato @ Kishan Kumar Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Krishna Kumar Mahato @ Kishan Kumar Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both anticipatory-bail rejection orders set aside; appellants directed to surrender within four weeks and pray for bail, upon which they are to be released on a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- each with two sureties of the like amount each, subject to the conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellants, whose prayers for anticipatory bail were rejected by the trial court, should be granted bail in connection with Govindpur P. S. Case No. 54 of 2025. +1 more

Court's answer

The Court set aside the order dated 07.10.2025 passed in A B. P. No. 1434 of 2025 and the order dated 12.11.2025 passed in A.B.P. No. 1690 of 2025 by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge VII cum Special Court (CAW), Jamshedpur.

Ratio / Principle

In its consideration, the Court found that the company is primarily involved in human resources, that the allegation is against Noshad Alam who is not a present appellant, that the allegations are vague and omnibus in nature, and that the appellants seem to be employees of the networking company.

Key takeaways

The appellants were directed to surrender before the court below within four weeks and pray for bail.ratio¶21
On surrender and prayer for bail, the appellants shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned J.M. 1st Class, Jamshedpur, in connection with Govindpur P. S. Case No. 54 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.ratio¶21
Both these appeals are allowed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal (D.B.) Nos. 37 and 47 of 2026 (heard together), High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi (Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, JJ.), decided 16.04.2026: Appeals against rejection of the appellants' anticipatory-bail prayers in A B. P. No. 1434 of 2025 (order dated 07.10.2025) and A.B.P. No. 1690 of 2025 (order dated 12.11.2025) passed by the District & Additional Sessions Judge VII cum Special Court (CAW), Jamshedpur, arising from Govindpur P. S. Case No. 54 of 2025, in which the informant, an employee of BHC Networking Pvt. Ltd., alleged that Rs. 25,000/- was taken on the allurement of providing a job and that trainees were brutally treated and later abandoned after a management dispute. Holding the company primarily involved in human resources, the principal allegation to be against one Noshad Alam (not an appellant), the allegations vague and omnibus, and the appellants seemingly mere employees of the networking company, the Court set aside both rejection orders, directed the appellants to surrender within four weeks and pray for bail, and ordered release on a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- each with two like sureties to the satisfaction of the J.M. 1st Class, Jamshedpur, subject to Section 482(2), Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Both appeals allowed.

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:10769-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 37 of 2026

Krishna Kumar Mahato @ Kishan Kumar Mahto

Roshan Kumar

Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Sexena … … Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent

With

Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 47 of 2026

Rahul Kumar Ranjan

… … 2. Raju Yadav Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent

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

For the Appellants : M/s. Indrajit Sinha & Ankit Vishal, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P. : Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, A.P.P.

3/16.04.2026 Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. A. K. Tiwari as well as Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, learned A.P.Ps. appearing for the State in both the cases.

These appeals are directed against the order dated 07.10.2025 passed in A B. P. No. 1434 of 2025 and order dated 12.11.2025 passed in A.B.P. No. 1690 of 2025 arising out of Govindpur P. S. Case No. 54 of 2025 by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge VII cum Special Court (CAW), Jamshedpur whereby and whereunder the prayers for anticipatory bail of the appellants have been rejected.

It has been alleged that the informant was an employee of BHC Networking Pvt. Ltd. and Rs. 25,000/- was taken on the allurement of providing job and the trainees were brutally treated by the owners of the company. It has further been alleged that 2 months prior to the lodging of the FIR, there was a dispute between the members of the management and the trainees were left abandoned which resulted in institution of FIR.

Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants that all the appellants were working in the company in

-2-

various capacities and so far as the appellant - Krishna Kumar Mahato is concerned, he was working in managerial capacity in the company. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that BHC Networking Pvt. Ltd. was dealing in human resources where training is imparted to the aspirants for getting jobs and in fact it appears that as per the pen drive the allegation is attributed to one Noshad Alam.

Learned A.P.Ps for the State have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants and have submitted that the appellants were in fact running a company and were also involved in mal-treatment of the trainees and taking money from them on the allurement of providing job.

On consideration of the allegations made and the fact that the company is primarily involved in human resources and there is allegation against Noshad Alam, who is not the present appellant apart from the fact that the allegations are vague and omnibus in nature and the appellants seem to be the employees of the networking company, we while setting aside the order dated 07.10.2025 passed in A B. P. No. 1434 of 2025 and order dated 12.11.2025 passed in A.B.P. No. 1690 of 2025 by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge VII cum Special Court (CAW), Jamshedpur, direct the appellants to surrender in the court below within four weeks and pray for bail, and in that event, they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned J. M. 1^st class, Jamshedpur in connection with Govindpur P. S. Case No. 54 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Both these appeals are allowed.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

16^th April 2026 R. Shekhar Cp 3