Rahul Kumar Ranjan Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Rahul Kumar Ranjan Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Setting aside of the orders dated 07.10.2025 (A B. P. No. 1434 of 2025) and 12.11.2025 (A.B.P. No. 1690 of 2025) rejecting anticipatory bail; appellants directed to surrender in the court below within four weeks and, on praying for bail, to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds 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' prayers for anticipatory bail in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No. 54 of 2025, earlier rejected by the District & Additional Sessions Judge VII cum Special Court (CAW), Jamshedpur, ought now to succeed so that the impugned rejection orders are set aside and the appellants secured bail.

Court's answer

On consideration of the allegations, the Court noted that the company is primarily involved in human resources and that the allegation is against Noshad Alam, who is not one of the present appellants.

Ratio / Principle

The Court found the allegations vague and omnibus in nature and observed that the appellants seem to be employees of the networking company.

Key takeaways

On the foregoing considerations, 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¶¶21
The appellants were directed to surrender in the court below within four weeks and pray for bail, whereupon they shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- each with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned J.M. 1st class, Jamshedpur, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.ratio¶¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal (D.B.) Nos. 37 and 47 of 2026, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, JJ.), decided 16.04.2026: Appeals against the orders dated 07.10.2025 (A B. P. No. 1434 of 2025) and 12.11.2025 (A.B.P. No. 1690 of 2025) of the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge VII cum Special Court (CAW), Jamshedpur, rejecting the appellants' prayers for anticipatory bail arising out of Govindpur P.S. Case No. 54 of 2025, in which the informant, an employee of BHC Networking Pvt. Ltd., alleged that Rs. 25,000/- had been taken on the allurement of providing jobs and that trainees were brutally treated, with a management dispute two months prior leaving trainees abandoned. Considering that the company is primarily involved in human resources, that the allegation is attributed to Noshad Alam who is not a present appellant, that the allegations are vague and omnibus, and that the appellants seem to be employees of the networking company, the Court set aside both impugned orders and allowed both appeals, directing the appellants to surrender within four weeks and pray for bail, on which they were to be released on bail of Rs. 10,000/- each with two like sureties, subject to the conditions under Section 482(2), Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

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