Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 611 (JHR)

ROHIT KUMAR v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./10289/2025 · 2026-02-09

Gautam Kumar Choudhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:3387 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 10289 of 2025 ------ Rohit Kumar, son of Late Mahendra Ram, resident of Ravinagar Lepo Road, Opposite Bara Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Sadar, District Hazaribag .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opp. Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Raj Shekhar Jha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Achinto Sen, A.P.P. ------ Order No.03 / Dated : 09.02.2026 Bail petition filed on behalf of the petitioner- Rohit Kumar, who is in custody since 09.07.2025 in connection with Hazaribag Sadar P.S. Case No. 116 of 2025 for the offence registered under Sections 137(2), 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 81 of J.J. Act, 2015 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial magistrate, Hazaribag, is pressed into motion. One and half year old son of the informant was kidnapped by three unidentified persons by offering biscuits. During investigation, an organized gang involved in child lifting, came to light. The kidnapped child is said to have been recovered on the basis of confessional statement of this petitioner from the house of Sarita Devi on 14.07.2025. Sarita Devi, Sudip Karmkar and Seema Sharma were involved in the gang of child lifting. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no material against the petitioner and the child was not recovered on the confessional statement of the petitioner which will be evident from the fact that Sarita Devi was arrested on 07.07.2025, whereas this petitioner was arrested on 09.07.2025. Main defence that has been raised on behalf of the petitioner is that only material is that on his disclosure statement, the kidnapped child was recovered from the house of Sarita Devi. Learned A.P.P. opposed the bail petition. It is submitted that the complicity of this petitioner in the offence has come-up in para 84 of the case diary which is his confessional statement and thereafter, from the house of Sarita Devi, the baby was recovered. However, by that time, Sarita Devi has been arrested and remanded in this case. Matter involves a gang of child lifting. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit Uploaded 10.02.2026