RANJEET KUMAR ALIAS CHUNCHUN v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
B.A./8891/2026 · 2026-09-24
Anil Kumar Choudhary
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 26908 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 26908 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
( 2026:JHHC:28770 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 8891 of 2026
------ Ranjeet Kumar @ Chunchun, aged about 46 years, son of Bidya Nand Singh, resident of Near Maa Medical Hall, Kumhrar, P.O.-B.H. Colony, P.S.-Agam Kuan, Dist.-Patna (Bihar)
… Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Abhishek Abhi, Advocate
: Mr. Akash Ajit Kumar, Advocate For the State
: Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P. ------
Order No.02 Dated- 24.09.2026
Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Tamar P.S. Case No.21 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under sections 111(2)/ 111(3)/ 112(2)/ 318(4)/ 49/ 61(2)/3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and under Section 12(3) of Jharkhand Competitive Examination (Majors for Control and Prevention of Unfair Means in Recruitment) Act, 2023. This is the second journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail and earlier the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 27.07.2026 in B.A. No. 6927 of 2026. The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was the head of the member of gang responsible for leaking of question paper of Jharkhand Excise Constable Examination. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false and the allegation against the petitioner is that he provided one set of question paper with answer and intimated the candidates who wanted to appear by adopting unfair means that the same has been obtained from the agency involved in conducting the examination. It is then submitted that Jharkhand
Staff Selection Commission has taken a stand that there is no leak of question paper and no trail of any money transaction can be detected during the investigation. It is further submitted that though charge sheet has been submitted in this case but no witness has been examined as yet. It is next submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in paragraph no.56 of the bail application. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 05.05.2026, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 53 of the bail application. It is next submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that co-accused-Atul Vats is having five criminal antecedents including the offence of involvement in leakage of question paper in Rajasthan; where two cases of similar nature being SOG (Jaipur) P.S. Case No. 04 of 2018 and Crime Branch (Rajasthan) P.S. Case No. 13 of 2017 has been registered and the scrutiny of WhatsApp of different accused persons during the investigation revealed that there was continuous coordination between the said co-accused-Atul Vats and the petitioner. It is then submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that the investigation revealed that there was concerted scheme and meeting of mind among the gang members and the petitioner forwarded the question paper along with answer to the mobile phone of the co-accused-Vikash with instruction to make the students who adopted unfair means to memorize the answers of the question. It is further submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that in view of the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not be admitted to bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail, this Court is not inclined to admit the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the abovenamed petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
24.09.2026 Gunjan-