Vimal Singh Vs State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Vimal Singh Vs State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appellant Vimal Singh to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge I, Khunti, in connection with Khunti (AHTU) P.S. Case No. 5 of 2025 corresponding S.T. No. 2 of 2026; the order dated 25.02.2026 in M.C.A. No. 60 of 2026 rejecting bail set aside.

Issue for consideration

Whether the prayer for bail of the appellant, rejected by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge I, Khunti in M.C.A. No. 60 of 2026 (arising out of Khunti (AHTU) P.S. Case No. 5 of 2025 corresponding S.T. No. 2 of 2026), should be granted notwithstanding the allegations relating to his inducing the informant to Delhi for domestic work.

Court's answer

Considering that the victim had come back and lodged the FIR, that she was working as a domestic help in some houses at Delhi, and the period of custody undergone by the appellant, the Division Bench set aside the order dated 25.02.2026 passed in M.C.A. No. 60 of 2026 by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge I, Khunti and directed that the appellant be released on bail.

Ratio / Principle

The bail is to be furnished by a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge I, Khunti, in connection with Khunti (AHTU) P.S. Case No. 5 of 2025 corresponding S.T. No. 2 of 2026.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 398 of 2026 (decided 07.04.2026) — The Division Bench (Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, JJ.) set aside the order dated 25.02.2026 passed in M.C.A. No. 60 of 2026 by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge I, Khunti, whereby the appellant's prayer for bail had been rejected, and directed his release on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, in connection with Khunti (AHTU) P.S. Case No. 5 of 2025 corresponding S.T. No. 2 of 2026. Bail was granted having regard to the facts that the victim had come back and lodged the FIR, that she was working as a domestic help in some houses at Delhi, and the period of custody undergone by the appellant. Appeal allowed. Counsel for the appellant: Suraj Kishore Prasad; State unrepresented.

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:9703-DB )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 398 of 2026

Vimal Singh son of Late Mateshwar Singh @ Tapeshwar Singh, R/o Koshambi Khunti, PO & PS Khunti, District Khunti, Jharkhand

… … Appellant

Versus

The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent ---

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

--For the Appellant : Mr. Suraj Kishore Prasad, Advocate For the Respondent : None

2/07.04.2026 Heard Mr. Suraj Kishore Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. None appears for the State.

This appeal is directed against the order dated 25.02.2026 passed in M.C.A. No. 60 of 2026 arising out of Khunti (AHTU) P. S. Case No. 5 of 2025 corresponding S. T. No. 2 of 2026 by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge I, Khunti whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected.

It has been alleged that the informant was induced by the appellant to Delhi where she was engaged as a domestic help in the house of one Kapil Goel. Subsequently, when she wanted to return, the appellant had threatened her and she was shifted to the house of Vinod Garg for a similar nature of work. When she came to know of her father’s death, she somehow escaped and returned to her village.

Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that no allegation of any sexual harassment has been made against the appellant by the informant. It has further been submitted that the victim was working as a domestic help in the house of Kapil Goes as well as in the house of Vinod Garg. He also submitted that the appellant is in custody since 16.10.2025.

-2-

Regard being had to the fact that the victim has come back and she has lodged FIR and the victim was working as a domestic help in some houses at Delhi and considering the period of custody undergone by the appellant, we while setting aside the order dated 25.02.2026 passed in M.C.A. No. 60 of 2026 by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge I, Khunti, direct that the appellant above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge I, Khunti in connection with Khunti (AHTU) P. S. Case No. 5 of 2025 corresponding S. T. No. 2 of 2026

This appeal is allowed.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

7^th April 2026 R. Shekhar Cp 3 Uploaded on 08/04/2026