( 2026:JHHC:9095 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 11641 of 2025 Thomas Dagal aged about 27 years, Son of Soma Dagal @ Soma Lohra, Resident of village Chalagi, P.O. Gutjora, P.S. Khunti, District- Khunti, (Jharkhand) … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Gaurav, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mrs. Bandana Sinha, APP 05/01.04.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 06.10.2025 in connection with Khunti P.S. Case No. 173 of 2025, registered under Sections 308(3) of BNS, 2023 and under Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act and the case is pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the F.I.R. which is filed against unknown, a purcha of PLFI was found in the courtyard of the informant and a demand of Rs. One crore was made in the name of one Rajesh Yadav as sub zonal commander. It was mentioned that on 16.08.2025, also money was demanded by mobile no. 9450264172. 4. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that said mobile has not been recovered from the petitioner and what has been recovered is his mobile and two PLFI purchas. He submits that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He has further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 06.10.2025 and charge has been framed on 16.01.2026. He has submitted that in the mobile of the co-accused, some list of the persons from whom demand was made has been found, but no such allegation has been made so far as petitioner is concerned. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that a counter affidavit has been filed in this case and so far as the CDR Report is concerned, the mobile recovered from the possession of the petitioner has no link with the commission of the alleged offence. He submits that except two PLFI purchas recovered from the possession of the petitioner, ( 2026:JHHC:9095 ) 2 there is nothing against the petitioner and the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedent. 6. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer but the said submissions of the petitioner are not in dispute. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the period of custody of the petitioner and the criminal antecedent report and that the phone recovered from the petitioner did not show any link with the alleged offence, the petitioner above named is directed to be enlarged on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty-five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti, in connection with Khunti P.S. Case No. 173 of 2025 on the following conditions: (i) One of the bailors would be the present pairvikar of the petitioner. (ii) The other bailor should be his close relative. (iii) The petitioner will attend the court on each and every date and on account of his single default, the learned court shall cancel the bail bond furnished by the petitioner. (iv) The petitioner will deposit a self-attested copy of his Aadhar Card along with his mobile number before the learned court which he will not change during the pendency of the case without prior permission of the court. (v) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the proceedings before the learned court below. 8. Let this order along with a copy of the affidavit filed with the bail petition be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e-mail. 9. The instant bail application is allowed with the aforesaid conditions. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 01/04/2026 Uploaded on 02.04.2026 Binit/