2026:JHHC:13886 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3679 of 2026 Vikram Kumar, S/o Krishna Kinkar Pandit @ Krishan Kinker Pandit, R/o Bhuli D Block, Sector-10 B, Quarter No. 11, PO-Bhuli Nagar, PS-Bankmore (Bhuli O.P.), District-Dhanbad … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Raj Nandan Chatterjee, Advocate For the State : Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey, A.P.P. ----- 02/08.05.2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is an accused for the offences punishable under Sections 310(2)/317(3)/111(2)(b)/111(3)/111(4)/111(6)/111(7) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25(1-B)a/25(6)/25(7)/26/35 of the Arms Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s bail application was earlier rejected by this Court vide order dated 13.02.2026 passed in B.A. No. 12124 of 2025. By way of present application, the petitioner has renewed his prayer for grant of regular bail. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with the present case since 27.08.2025 and the chargesheet against him has already been submitted. It is also contended that while rejecting the petitioner’s bail application vide order dated 13.02.2026, the submission of the learned A.P.P. was perhaps taken into consideration that on the alleged confession, some of the looted articles were recovered from his possession. Learned counsel for the petitioner invites the attention of the Court towards seizure memo dated 18.08.2025 (page-23 of the bail application) prepared by the police with respect to the recovered articles. As per the said seizure memo, the place of recovery has been shown as “Bhuli D Block, Sector-10 B, Quarter No. 11, 2026:JHHC:13886 2 PO-Bhuli Nagar, PS-Bankmore (Bhuli O.P.), District-Dhanbad”, which is said to be in possession of the petitioner. However, the articles alleged to have been recovered from the said quarter are iron rods, hammers, screw driver, pliers, saw/blade etc. All the said articles are common items found in almost every household which cannot be said to have been used for the commission of the offence. Moreover, the recovery of one Scorpio vehicle has also been shown, which belongs to the petitioner. The said seizure memo also suggests that there has been no recovery of looted articles. Under the said circumstance, the petitioner may be given the privilege of regular bail. 4. Learned A.P.P. opposes the petitioner’s prayer for bail. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the materials available on record, 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 the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bermo at Tenughat (Bokaro) in connection with S.T. No. 31 of 2026, arising out of Nawadih P.S. Case No. 57 of 2025. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) May 08, 2026 Manish Uploaded on 08.05.2026