Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 23154 (JHR)

AMJAD RAJ ALIAS AMJAD ALI ALIAS AMJAD v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./7793/2026 · 2026-08-19

Anil Kumar Choudhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

( 2026:JHHC:25005 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7793 of 2026 ------ 1. Amjad Raj @ Amjad Ali @ Amjad, son of Jishan, aged about 32 years, 2. Farman Ali @ Farman, son of Umardin, aged about 30 years, Both resident of Ranamajra, P.O. Ranamajra, P.S. Sanoli, District –Panipat, Haryana. … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Vipul Poddar, Advocate : Ms. Sugandha Jaiswal, Advocate For the State : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 19.08.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioners have moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No.201 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under sections 303(2), 317(4), 317(5), 112(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons have committed theft of iron water pipes and were assisting in concealment and disposal of the stolen property. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are all false. It is then submitted that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in para –11 of the bail application. It is next submitted that the petitioners have been in custody since 04.07.2026, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 10 of the bail application. It is also submitted that the petitioners have no knowledge that the iron water pipes are stolen property. It is further submitted that the petitioners undertake to cooperate with the trial of the case and further undertake that they will not annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be admitted to bail. The learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for bail. Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am inclined to enlarge the above-named petitioners on bail. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Dhanbad, in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No.201 of 2026 with the condition that the petitioners will co-operate with the trial of the case and will furnish their mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that they will not change their mobile number during the trial of the case, with further condition that they will not annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 19.08.2026 Sonu/