Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 2257 (JHR)

VIKASH SINGH @ BIKASH SINGH v. STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./76/2026 · 2026-03-11

Anubha Rawat Choudhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:6395 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 76 of 2026 Vikash Singh @ Bikash Singh, aged about 31 years, son of Manoj Singh, Resident of Majhi Tola, Post Adityapur, Police Station Adityapur, District Seraikella Kharsawan … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. V.S. Sahay, APP --- 03/11.03.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 05.09.2025 in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No. 275 of 2025, registered under Sections 126(2)/127(2)/115(2)/117(2)/109/324(4)/125(a) / 125(b) / 352 / 351(2) and 3(5) of B.N.S., 2023, now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Seraikella. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the First Information Report, there is general and omnibus allegation, though the petitioner is named in the First Information Report. He has submitted that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to commit the offence. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the victim has suffered grievous injury and he has named the petitioner in the First Information Report. He has also submitted that on the basis of CCTV footage, the vivid description of the incident has been recorded and the petitioner has also been identified in the CCTV footage. 5. To this, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was only standing there. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation and the fact that the petitioner has been named by the victim in the FIR and he has also been seen in the 2026:JHHC:6395 2 CCTV footage, as recorded in paragraph no. 61 of the case-diary, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected. 7. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:11.03.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading: 11.03.2026