Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 14119 (JHR)

RAJKUMAR SINGH @ GOLU v. STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./2179/2026 · 2026-03-18

Sujit Narayan Prasad

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 2179 of 2026 ------ Rajkumar Singh @ Golu, aged about 33 years, S/o Gopal Singh, R/o New Hill Area, Bariatu, PO & PS-Bariatu & District-Ranchi, Jharkhand ……………Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ..............Opposite Party ------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD ------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rishu Ranjan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vijoy Kumar Sinha, APP Order No.2/ Dated:18th March, 2026 1. The instant bail application under section 483 and 484 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita has been filed seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in connection with Jagarnathpur P.S Case No.489 of 2025 registered for the offence under Sections 308(3), 308(4), 111(2) (b), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. 3. It has been contended that there is no specific attributability against the petitioner even as per the FIR. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 28.12.2025. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the present petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 2 5. While on the other hand, Mr. Vijoy Kumar Sinha, the learned APP appearing for the State, however, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. 6. It has been contended by the learned APP that there is specific attributability said to be committed by the present petitioner, since, as would be evident from the FIR registered on the basis of the information furnished by one Ajay Shah, the Managing Director, Evana Infratech Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and proprietor of KD Groups at Madhushree Hights, Harmu of receiving WhatsApp message on Mobile No.xxxxxx3178 from Mobile No.xxxxxx9932 and the sender was Saurabh Singh, who introduced himself as a member of Aman Sahu Gang and demanded Protection Money by extending threat to kill him if the demand was not fulfilled. 7. The learned State counsel, based upon the aforesaid allegation, has submitted that the nature of allegation is serious and the modus operandi of like nature is rampant in the State of Jharkhand and, as such, it is not a case where the present petition is to be allowed. 8. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 9. This Court after considering the imputation made in the FIR registered on the basis of written report of Ajay Shah, who happens to be the Managing Director, Evana Infratech Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and proprietor of KD Groups at Madhushree Hights, Harmu. He has received the WhatsApp message on Mobile No.xxxxxx3178 from Mobile No.xxxxxx9932. The sender was shown to be one Saurabh Singh who had introduced himself as a member of Aman Sahu Gang. The extortion 3 money was demanded with a threat that if it will not be paid, he would be killed. 10. The learned trial Court while considering the prayer for bail has perused the case diary wherein it has come that the petitioner is having close association with the alleged Aman Sahu Gang. The aforesaid fact has been found to be in corroboration in the inculpatory statement of co- accused Saurabh Singh @ Saurabh Kumar and the petitioner himself. 11. The fact about the demand of Protection Money has been referred in paragraph-13 of the case diary by referring the SIM number of the mobile from which the Protection Money was demanded. It has also come that the SIM from which the Protection Money was demanded has also been found fixed in the mobile phone seized from the said co-accused and there was message of chat in between them in which the petitioner has provided the mobile number of the informant to the said co-accused for demand of extortion money. 12. This Court, considering the nature of the allegation alleged against the present petitioner, is of the view that the present application is not fit to be allowed and accordingly, it is dismissed. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Dated:18.03.2026 Sudhir