Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 20064 (JHR)

RAJAN PANDIT @ RAJAN @ RANJAN PANDEY v. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Cr.A(DB)/756/2026 · 2026-07-09

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, Rongon Mukhopadhyay

Civil Appealbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:20326-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. A. (DB) No. 756 of 2026 -------- Rajan Pandit @ Rajan @ Ranjan Pandey, age 22 years, S/o of Vinay Kumar Pandey, resident of Near Bhaga Railway Phatak, P.O. & P.S.- Jharia, District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand ... ... Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Appellant : Mr. Soumitra Baroi, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Shweta Singh, A.P.P. -------- Order No. 02/ Dated: 09th July, 2026 1. Heard Mr. Soumitra Baroi, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.04.2026 passed in M.C.A. No. 618 of 2026, arising out of Jharia P.S. Case No. 215 of 2023, by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-III- cum-Special Judge, Women’s Court, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected. 3. Allegation has been leveled that the daughter of the informant had gone to school but she did not return and despite a search conducted by the informant, she could not be located. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that one of the co-accused, namely Pratima Pandey @ Pratima who happens to be the mother of the appellant, has been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. A. (DB) No. 583 of 2026. It has been submitted that the only allegation against the appellant is that he had accompanied the other accused persons including the victim and the marriage of the victim was solemnized with one Satya 2026:JHHC:20326-DB 2 Cr. A. (DB) No. 756 of 2026 Prakash. Learned counsel submits that so far as the mother of the appellant is concerned, she was also one of the persons who had accompanied. Learned counsel adds that the appellant is in custody since 11.10.2025. 5. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant. 6. Regard being had to the fact that one of the co-accused similarly situated has been granted bail as noted above, we while setting aside the order dated 08.04.2026 passed in M.C.A. No. 618 of 2026, arising out of Jharia P.S. Case No. 215 of 2023, by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-III-cum-Special Judge, Women’s Court, Dhanbad, direct that the appellant be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-III-cum-Special Judge, Women’s Court, Dhanbad in S.T. Case No. 709 of 2025. 7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) 09.07.2026 Arpit Uploaded on 14/07/2026