Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 33154 (JHR)

TEJ KUMAR HANSDA ALIAS TEJ KUMAR HANSDAH v. STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./4342/2025 · 2025-10-08

Ambuj Nath

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

(2025:JHHC:31035) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 4342 of 2025 Tej Kumar Hansda @ Tej Kumar Hansdah, aged about 45 years, son of Satyanarayan Hansda, Resident of Banjhi Bazar, P.O.-Banjhi Bazar, P.S.- Uppar Banjhi, Dist.-Sahebganj …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Vikash Kumar Hansdah, S/o Sukhen Kumar Hansdah, r/o- Kasira P.S.- Pakur, Dist.-Pakur at present State Bank of India, Dumriha Branch, Branch Manager, Lillipara, Pakur, Mobile No.9771438436 …. Opp. Parties ------ CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. R. S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Devesh Krishna, SC (M)-III For the Informant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Mahindra Kr. Sinha, Advocate ----- 5/ 08.10.2025 Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner has been made accused in connection with Littipara P.S. Case No. 37 of 2023 for the offences registered under Sections 408, 409, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur. 3. During intervening period of 01.05.2020 to 31.08.2020, Rs.1,46,14,500/- were embezzled from SBI Branch, Littipara. It is alleged that petitioner was presiding as Branch Manager during some of the aforesaid period. 4. It was submitted that petitioner has been made accused only on the basis of suspicion. It was further submitted that no person has come forward to say that money was embezzled from his account. It was further submitted that one of the co-accused, namely, Soloman Hembrom @ Solomon Hembram against whom there is similar allegation has been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in B.A. No.6946 of 2025 vide order dated 08.08.2025. 5. Learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. 6. In view of the submission made above, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur, in connection with Littipara P.S. Case No. 37 of 2023. (Ambuj Nath, J.) Rohit/-