2026:JHHC:11894 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 2335 of 2026 Rahul Pratap @ Rahul Kumar, son of Late Binay Kumar … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through A.C.B. (Vigilance) … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Senior Advocate : Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P. --- 04/23.04.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State filed counter- affidavit in this case during the court proceedings, which is taken on record. 3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 15.02.2026 in connection with A.C.B. Ranchi P.S. Case No. 07 of 2026, registered under Section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, now pending in the court of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ranchi. 4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner was head clerk cum cashier in the office of Minor Irrigation Department, Gumla and it is alleged that the estimated cost of the project was Rs. 21,75,900/- and he demanded a bribe of Rs. 20,000/- to place the agreement paper submitted by the complainant before the executive engineer. The learned Senior counsel has submitted that the tender was already allocated in favour of the complainant. 5. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 15.02.2026 and though the charge-sheet has been submitted, but the cognizance has not been taken for want of sanction for prosecution and also for want of FSL report. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State, on the other hand, 2026:JHHC:11894 2 has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the petitioner has been caught red handed with bribe money and therefore, he may not be enlarged on bail. However, she has submitted that so far as point of sanction for prosecution and FSL report is concerned, the State can take appropriate steps. 7. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the fact that the petitioner has been caught red handed with bribe money, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage and hence, this bail application is rejected. 8. However, the State is directed to expedite the matter regarding grant of sanction for prosecution and also obtain the FSL report. 9. The petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after 4 months. 10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:23.04.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:24.04.2026