2026:JHHC:14872 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3576 of 2026 Ravindra Kumar, son of late Bishnu Prasad. … … Petitioner Versus Union of India (through CBI) … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate : Mr. Parth Jalan, Advocate --- 02/14.05.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 17.03.2026 in connection with R.C. Case No.03 (A) of 2026 (D), registered under Sections 7 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 1988, now pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge – V, Dhanbad. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner happens to be the Junior Engineer in the Railway Department. As per the allegation, he had demanded Rs.15,000/- as bribe money for providing the electricity connection. He has submitted that the electricity connection was provided on 16.02.2026 and the trap was conducted on 16.03.2026 and the complaint was made on 27.02.2026. 4. The learned counsel submits that once the electricity connection was already provided, there was no occasion to demand any bribe. The learned counsel has further submitted that Rs.10,000/- is alleged to have been recovered during the trap. The petitioner is in custody since 17.03.2026. 5. The learned counsel for the CBI has submitted that the investigation is not yet complete and has also referred to the recording of the conversation and has submitted that it has been stated that the complainant and the petitioner had to go a long way for various other works, and therefore, they have to help each other. He submits that merely because the connection was already provided, the same does not mean that the trap was bad in law. 2026:JHHC:14872 2 6. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the direct allegation, and the trap, in which the petitioner has been caught red handed with bribe money and the matter is still under investigation, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. 7. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge or after 6 months whichever is earlier. 8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:14.05.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:15.05.2026