Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 17715 (JHR)

VIKASH CHANDRA KUILA v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./1489/2026 · 2026-06-19

Anil Kumar Choudhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:JHHC:18112] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 1489 of 2026 Vikash Chandra Kuila, aged about 46 years, Son of Devendra Nath Kuila, resident of Near S.D.M. Residence Tungri, P.O. Tungri, P.S. Tungri, District-West Singhbhum, Jharkhand. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha , Adv. For the State : Mr. Devesh Krishna , SC (Mines) III. 06 / 19.06.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Gua P.S. Case No. 34/2025 instituted under Section 316(2) 316(5), 318(4) of the B.N.S., 2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner while posted as Sub Post Master of Gua Post Office has embezzled the government money to the tune of Rs. 50,56,473/-. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in jail custody since 08.10.2025, as mentioned in para 9 of this bail application. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the trial of the case hence, the petitioner may be admitted to bail. Learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has embezzled huge amount of money; there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and also there is chance of the petitioner tampering with the evidence, if released on bail. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not be released on bail at this stage. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner as well as the chance of his tampering with the evidence and absconding, if released on bail, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioner be released on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Dated 19.06.2026 Smita/-