2026:JHHC:2481 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 10442 of 2025 ----- Akhil Kumar, S/o Arjun Mahato, R/o Village-Balugadda, Jharia, P.O. & P.S.-Jharia, Dist.-Dhanbad, Jharkhand … …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … …. Opp. Party With B. A. No. 10697 of 2025 ----- Surjit Goswami @ Surajit Goswami, S/o Ram Prasad Goswami, R/o Village-Korradih, Kolakusma, Gosaidih, P.O. & P.S.-Govindpur, Dist.-Dhanbad … …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … …. Opp. Party ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate (B.A.10442/25) Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Advocate (B.A. 10697/25) For the State : Mr. Satish Kr. Keshri, A.P.P. (B.A. 10442/25) Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Spl.P.P. (B.A.10697/25) ----- Oral Order 02 / Dated : 30.01.2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Both the petitioners named above have been made accused in connection with Jorapokhar P.S. Case No. 77 of 2025 for the offence registered under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 309(4), 61(2), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the FIR has been lodged against three named and one unknown person but the name of both these petitioners is not figured in the FIR. The main allegation against these petitioners is that the informant was robbed of his Scorpio and Rs.5 Lakh was forced to be transferred from the account of the informant to the accused persons. Other co-accused persons have been granted bail. There is no material against these petitioners save and except the confessional statement made by the co-accused before the police. It is also submitted that Petitioner in B.A. no.10442 of 2025 is in custody since 08.08.2025 and the petitioner in B.A.no.10697 of 2025 is in custody since 09.09.2025. 2026:JHHC:2481 2 Learned counsel for the State have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the mobile of Vikram Sahu was used for transfer of Rs.25,000/- from the account of the informant to Shivam and Vikram Sahu. The said mobile was being used by these petitioners which would be evident from para-44 of the case diary. Learned counsel for the petitioners in both cases deny the statement made by the State. It appears that the only material against these petitioners is that one mobile, which was seized from the possession of Vikram Sahu, is said to be used by these petitioners in transferring the amount from the account of the informant. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, both the petitioners named above, are directed to be released on bail on depositing Rs.50,000/- each as cash security and 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 Court below. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT/Satendra Uploaded 31.01.2026