Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 12249 (JHR)

RAHUL KUMAR SHARMA v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./3634/2026 · 2026-05-11

Anil Kumar Choudhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

( 2026:JHHC:14234 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3634 of 2026 ------ Rahul Kumar Sharma, aged about 27 years, Son of Ashok Sharma, Resident of Village –Kankari, P.O. & P.S. –Chainpur, Kankari, District –Palamau (Jharkhand) … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.03 Dated- 11.05.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with S.T. Case No. 58 of 2025 arising out of Sonari P.S. Case No.68 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under sections 395/412 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section (25(1- B)a/26/35 of the Arms Act. This is the second journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail and earlier the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was rejected on merit vide order dated 04.11.2025 in B.A. No. 7769 of 2025. It is next submitted that the fresh ground is that in the meanwhile, charge has been framed and the petitioner has been in custody for some more time. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that merely because the petitioner has remained in custody for some more time is not a sufficient ground to review the prayer for bail of the petitioner which was earlier rejected on merit. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be admitted to bail. Considering the fact that the prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected on merit, this Court if of the considered view that merely because the petitioner has remained in custody for some more time is not a sufficient ground to admit the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail of the above-named petitioners is rejected for the same reasons as mentioned in the order dated 04.11.2025 in B.A. No. 7769 of 2025. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 11.05.2026 Sonu/