Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 7164 (JHR)

SAURABH KUMAR v. STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH A.C.B. VIGILANCE

B.A./2216/2026 · 2026-04-23

Anubha Rawat Choudhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:11893 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 2216 of 2026 Saurabh Kumar, son of Madan Mohan Prasad … … 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 : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P. --- 05/23.04.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 18.12.2025 in connection with Dumka A.C.B. P.S. Case No. 04 of 2025 corresponding to Vigilance Case No. 01 of 2026, registered under Section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended Act, 2018, now pending in the court of learned Additional sessions Judge-II-cum-Special Judge, A.C.B., Dumka. 3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the allegation, the petitioner working as clerk in the office of Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan, Jamtara, had demanded an amount of Rs. 8,000/- as bribe money for approval of honorarium from the complainant. However, only Rs. 6000/- was to be paid at the first instance and remaining was to be paid after the work was done. The petitioner was caught red handed with Rs. 6000/-. 4. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 18.12.2025 and charge -sheet has been submitted, but charge has not been framed. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the petitioner has been caught red handed in a trap case and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the privilege of bail. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is not 2026:JHHC:11893 2 inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage and hence, this bail application is rejected. 7. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge. 8. 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