Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 21408 (JHR)

JITENDRA KUMAR RAM v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THRU VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT

B.A./3606/2026 · 2026-07-23

Anubha Rawat Choudhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:21762 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3606 of 2026 Jitendra Kumar Ram, Son of Ratan Mochi … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance Department … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party-ACB : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, Advocate --- 07/23rd July 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with ACB P.S. Case No. 02/2026 corresponding to Vigilance Case No. 02/2026 for the offence registered under Section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2018, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Special Judge (ACB), Palamau at Daltonganj. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 06.02.2026 and is Rojgar Sevak of Saraidih Panchayat and he has been alleged to have caught red handed with bribe money of Rs. 7,000/- for making entry of his field for irrigation well construction scheme. The learned counsel submits that the charge-sheet has been submitted on 02.04.2026, but prosecution has not been granted. 3. Learned counsel for the opposite party-ACB has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that after completing all procedure, the trap was laid and the petitioner was apprehended with bribe money. The learned counsel has submitted that as per the Prevention of Corruption Act, there is a timeline for grant of prosecution sanction, which is three months and additional one month is also available and the time has not yet expired. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the petitioner was apprehended red handed with bribe money, this 2026:JHHC:21762 2 Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is hereby rejected. 5. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge. 6. Learned counsel for the ACB is directed to inform the sanctioning authority that the matter regarding grant of sanction cannot remain pending for unlimited period. 7. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 23.07.2026 Uploaded On: 23.07.2026 Mukul/-