( 2026:JHHC:29714 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9149 of 2026 Jitendra Kumar Ram, aged about 41 years, Son of Ratan Mochi, Resident of Village-Nawdiha, P.O.-Nawdiha, P.S.-Patan, District- Palamu. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- 05/05.10.2026 Learned counsel for the petitioner is present. 2. Learned counsel for the Opp. Party-State Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, Special P.P. is also present. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 06.02.2026 in connection with Vigilance Case No. 2 of 2026 arising out of A.C.B. P.S. Case No. 02 of 2026, registered under Section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, now pending in the court of learned Spl. Judge (ACB), Palamu at Daltonganj. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected on 23rd July, 2026 and the charge-sheet was submitted on 02.04.2026, but till date, the prosecution sanction has not yet been granted. He submits that the petitioner is in custody for about eight months i.e. from 06.02.2026. Learned counsel has submitted that, if the timeline from the date of submitting charge-sheet is taken into consideration, then the period prescribed under the Prevention of Corruption Act has expired, but still the prosecution sanction is awaited due to which cognizance is not being taken and therefore, the charge has not been framed. Learned counsel submits that observation was made by this Court that the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge and therefore, considering the custody of the petitioner and timeline having been expired, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 5. Learned counsel for the ACB has opposed the prayer for bail and has referred to the counter-affidavit and has submitted that the ( 2026:JHHC:29714 ) 2 matter has been sent for prosecution sanction vide letter dated 18.06.2026 and the timeline of four months, as provided under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is yet to expired. Learned counsel submits that the argument of the petitioner that timeline for prosecution sanction has expired is not correct. 6. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the fact that an observation was made by this Court that the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge, but the charge has not been framed so far and the timeline for grant of prosecution sanction by the concerned authority is yet to expire, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The petitioner is alleged to have been caught red handed with bribe money in the trap case. The timeline of four months for obtaining prosecution sanction against the petitioner will expire on 18th of October, 2026. 7. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. 8. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail in the month of November, 2026 or upon framing of charge whichever is earlier. 9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:05.10.2026 Nandini Date of Uploading: