2026:JHHC:5265 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 262 of 2026 Suryanarayan Patro, aged about 58 years, Son of Shivcharan Patro, residence of Vidya sagar palli, Parsudih, P.O.- Tatanagar, P.S. Parsudih, Town-Jamshedpur, Distt- East Singhbhum, Jharkhand (as per FIR), R/o – village- Gabra Tola, P.S. Haludbani, P.S. Potka, Dist.- East Singhbhum (as per impugned order). … … Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Md. Nasim Akhtar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey, APP --- 05/20.02.2026 Heard Md. Nasim Akhtar, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey, learned APP appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State of Jharkhand. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 17.10.2025 in connection with Sakchi P.S. Case No. 69 of 2024, registered under Sections 323, 341, 342, 420, 406, 467, 468, 504 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, now pending in the court of learned CJM, East Singhbhum- Jamshedpur. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is an employee of the company namely, M/s Maxizone Touch Private Limited (accused no. 1) and there is an allegation that the petitioner used to approach the complainant asking him to invest money in the company and promising that there will be return of 15% monthly interest. The learned counsel submits that when the amount was not returned with 15% interest, there was certain altercation and ultimately, the complaint case was lodged which was sent for investigation by the police. He has also submitted that as per the allegation, the amount was taken in the account of the company who is accused no. 1 and the petitioner was only an employee of the company. The learned counsel has referred to Annexure-2 of the bail application. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that 7 different victims have filed complaint cases and therefore, there are 7 cases against the petitioner and in a few of them, he has already been 2026:JHHC:5265 2 enlarged on bail. Apart from these cases, the petitioner does not have any other criminal antecedent. 6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has referred to the fact that as per the allegation, the petitioner has behaved in an unruly manner with the victims. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the amount has been credited in the account of accused no. 1 – company and the petitioner claims to be just an employee of the company and the charge-sheet has already been submitted coupled with the fact that petitioner is in custody since 17.10.2025, the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on 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 the learned CJM, East Singhbhum- Jamshedpur in connection with Sakchi P.S. Case No. 69 of 2024, 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 even 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 trial court. 8. The instant application is allowed with the aforesaid conditions. 9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:20.02.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:21.02.2026