Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 74 (JHR)

PRATIK JAIN v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./10953/2025 · 2026-01-05

Gautam Kumar Choudhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:125 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 10953 of 2025 ------ Pratik Jain, S/o Prakash Chandra Jain, R/o Near Air Service Centre, Bhuiyan Toli, Kishoregunj, PO- GPO, PS- Kotwali, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ……….. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ……….. For the Petitioner : Mr. Soumitra Baroi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, SPP For the Informant : Mr. Abhilash Kumar, Advocate Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, Advocate ------ Order No.02 / Dated : 05.01.2026. Heard both the sides. The petitioner, above-named is in custody since 26.10.2024 in connection with Kotwali (Ranchi) P.S. Case No. 296 of 2024 [G.R. No.270 of 2025] for the offence registered under Sections 316 (4), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023, pending in the Court of learned C.J.M., Ranchi or its successor court. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner was working as Accountant in the firm, namely, Infinity Promoters, a partnership firm of the informant. It is alleged that he diverted a sum of Rs.32,67,992/- and has committed criminal breach of trust. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that no offence of forgery will be made out as the document which is said to have been forged has not been disclosed. Further, the money trail has not been established nor any amount has been recovered from the possession of petitioner. On this, he has been falsely implicated in the case out of grudge and ill-will. It is further submitted that charge in this case was framed on 11.02.2025 and almost one year has elapsed, but not a single witness has been examined on behalf of the prosecution and further, he has no criminal antecedent. Learned S.P.P. for the State assisted by learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that the petitioner is named in the FIR and there is direct and specific allegation against him to be involved in the alleged offence. 2026:JHHC:125 2 Having considered the submissions, it appears that the petitioner is in jail for about 15 months and trial has not even commenced although the charge was framed on 11.02.2025. Accordingly, the above-named petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/-(Twenty-Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Court below. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/- Uploaded 06.01.2026.