Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 3887 (JHR)

VINOD KUMAR MOCHI @ BINOD MOCHI v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT

B.A./449/2026 · 2026-01-22

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

( 2026:JHHC:1693 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI ---- B.A. No. 449 of 2026 ---- Vinod Kumar Mochi @ Binod Mochi, aged about 45 years, son of late Pachu Ram, resident of village-Bajraha, P.O. Bajraha, P.S. Sadar, District- Palamau, Jharkhand ….. Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance Department …... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Sheo Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P. 04/22.01.2026 :- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. Learned counsel for the State submits that counter- affidavit is ready but the same has not been filed in the Registry as the matter was on Board. 3. In view of such submission, counter affidavit is taken on record. 4. The petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with ACB P.S. Case No. 10/2025, corresponding to Vigilance Case No. 10/2025, registered under section 7 (a) of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, pending in the Court of learned Special Judge (ACB), Palamau at Daltonganj. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner happens to be Head Clerk posted in the office of Circle Office, Chainpur Circle and allegations are made of demanding Rs. 5500/- and that money has also been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. He further submits that chargesheet has been ( 2026:JHHC:1693 ) 2 submitted and petitioner is in custody since 20.11.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that from the possession of the petitioner said recovery has been made. 5. Considering that petitioner is in custody since 20.11.2025, chargesheet has been submitted and it has been pointed out that if the petitioner is granted regular bail he will not tamper with any of the witness, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner, above named, shall be released on regular bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge (ACB), Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with ACB P.S. Case No. 10/2025, corresponding to Vigilance Case No. 10/2025. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dt. 22.01.2026 Satyarthi/