KUSHAL BANERJEE ALIAS AMIT BANERJEE ALIAS AMIT MUKHERJEE v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
B.A./10657/2025 · 2025-11-28
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 36205 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 36205 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:JHHC:35632 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No.10657 of 2025
Kushal Banerjee @ Amit Banerjee @ Amit Mukherjee, aged about 45 years, S/o Parag Ranjan Banerjee, R/o 453, Netaji Colony, Baranagar, Naopara, P.O. & P.S. Netaji Nagar, Kolkata, West Bengal
…. Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand
… Opp. Party
--------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Rishu Ranjan, Advocate
Mr. Chiranjeev Bhadoria, Advocate For the State
: Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P. ------
2/28.11.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State.
2. The petitioner is seeking regular bail, in connection with CID Case No.41 of 2024, registered for the offences under Section registered under sections 316(5), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(1), 340 (2) & 61(2) the BNS and later on amended after supervision under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 470, 471, 120B of IPC and under Sections 13 (1) (d), 13 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act, pending before the court of learned AJC XVIII cum Spl. Judge CID, Ranchi.
3.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and subsequently the name of the petitioner has come. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 03.09.2025. He then submits that petitioner is neither the employee of Jharkhand Tourism Development Corporation nor the employee of Canara Bank. He also submits that other co-accused have been grated regular bail in B.A. No.267 of 2025 and BA No.7123 of 2025 and others also as contained in Annexure-3.
2025:JHHC:35632 2
4.
Learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the prayer and submits that huge amount of defalcation is there.
5. Considering that the petitioner is in custody since 03.09.2025 and two co-accused have been granted bail in aforesaid BAs and others were also granted bail as contained in Annexure-3 of the present bail application, I am inclined to release the petitioner on regular bail.
6. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on regular bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned AJC XVIII cum Spl. Judge CID, Ranchi, in connection with CID Case No.41 of 2024.
7. This Application is accordingly allowed and disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) R.Kumar 28.11.2025