2026:JHHC:4879 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.11014 of 2025 ----- Naresh Mandal, son of Gujjar Mandal, resident of Jorbari Achra, P.O. + P.S. Bardhhaman (West Bengal), at present residing at Hasi Pahari, P.O. + P.S. Mihijam, District Jamtara, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand. … … Opposite Party ----- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Anand Kr. Sinha, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Sharan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, A.P.P. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate Mr. Vishwanath Moon, Advocate Ms. Shalini Sahoo, Advocate ----- 03/ 18.02.2026 This Bail Application under Section 483 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been filed to release the petitioner on regular bail in connection with S.T. Case No.336 of 2025, arising out of Chas Mufassil P.S. Case No.101 of 2025, for offences under Sections 126(2), 304(2), 204, 205, 309(4), 316(2), 318(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The case is presently pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bokaro. 2. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner, learned A.P.P. representing the State and learned counsel representing the informant. Perused the material available on record and also gone through the impugned order. 3. The prosecution case on the basis of written report of the informant – Abhay Anand @ Abhay Singh, resident of Ranchi, who called himself a land dealer, is that he in order to purchase a land in Dhanbad, went with his friends to Nirsa, Mugma, Dhanbad. When the informant met with the land dealers, they demanded Rs.1 crore in cash, in lieu of Agreement. The informant showed inability to pay Rs.1 crore, that too, in cash and told that he can only arrange Rs.65,00,000/-, upon which the land dealers given 2026:JHHC:4879 2 proposal to deposit the amount in Account No.490720110000565 of YES Bank, with an assurance that a third person will give the cash in Dhanbad. The informant agreed and deposited Rs.65,00,000/- in the said Account. Thereafter, when the informant was taken to receive cash, he saw that cash was put on the table but not finding any whisper about Agreement or land paper, he raised objection. Cash was given. He was taken to the vehicle by one Anil on the pretext of critical situation, and in a deserted road a dacoity was committed by some person who were in white Scorpio, disguised as Police Officers, four Constables and one Driver. The informant somehow stopped the vehicle and raised their voice, upon which villagers gathered there. One of the offenders fled away by breaking Toll along with the case of Rs.65 lacs and two phones of the informant. 4. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been named in the F.I.R. He submits that there is no evidence against this petitioner which can link him with commission of dacoity, thus, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. 5. Learned A.P.P. representing the State and learned counsel representing the informant vehemently oppose the prayer for bail. They submit that the petitioner’s employee withdrew the money from Bank. However, they admit that there is nothing on record that can link this petitioner with commission of dacoity. Learned A.P.P. also submits that the confessional statement is highlighting totally different aspect. 6. From perusal of the F.I.R. and the materials available on record, I find that there is no whisper of any allegation against the petitioner in the entire F.I.R. as he is not even named in the F.I.R. So far as the confessional statement is concerned, the same is nothing but a merely extracted statement which gives some different facts. Further, the amount of Rs.65 lac which was deposited in the account of staff of this petitioner, withdrawal of the said amount from that Account has been given a colour of recovery of amount of dacoity. The Bank official’s statement 2026:JHHC:4879 3 suggests that the amount recovered was withdrawn from Bank. The petitioner is in custody since 25.07.2025. Thus, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. 7. Accordingly, this Bail Application is allowed. The petitioner above named is directed to be released on bail in connection with S.T. Case No.336 of 2025, arising out of Chas Mufassil P.S. Case No.101 of 2025, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bokaro, subject to the condition that one of the bailors should be a close relative of the petitioner, having sufficient landed property in his / her own name within the State of Jharkhand. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 18th February, 2026 Prashant. Cp-3 Uploaded on 21.02.2026