2026:JHHC:4758 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 11095 of 2025 Suraj Kumar, aged about 22 years, S/o Vinod Saw, R/o Harihargang, P.O. Harihargang, P.S. Harihargang, Dist. Palamu … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, Advocate --- 03/18th February 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 18.09.2025 in connection with Sonari P.S. Case No. 116 of 2025 for the offence registered under Sections 310(2), 311 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 27 of the Arms Act, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First class, Jamshedpur. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only allegation against the petitioner is that the miscreants, who had entered into the shop and had taken away jewelry from shop, fled away by using a car in which the petitioner is the driver. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is a professional car driver and is engaged in driving profession of public and private cars. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. However, the charge-sheet has already been submitted. 3. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the petitioner has one criminal antecedent. However, even as per the case of the prosecution, the petitioner was not amongst the miscreants, who had entered into the jewelry shop for commission of offence. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner was seen in the CCTV footage at Toll Plaza and not at the jewelry shop. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that there is no allegation against the petitioner having entered into the 2026:JHHC:4758 2 shop with the criminals who had committed the offence. It has been mentioned in the FIR itself that all the six criminals had fled away by motorcycles and the petitioner is alleged to be the driver of the car whose registration number has also been furnished. 5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and that the charge-sheet has already been submitted, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty- Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jamshedpur in connection with Sonari P.S. Case No. 116 of 2025, subject to the following conditions: - (i) One of the bailors would be the present pairvikar of the petitioner. (ii) The other bailor should be his close relative. (iii) The petitioner will attend the court on each and every date and on account of his single default, the learned court shall cancel the bail bond furnished by the petitioner. (iv) The petitioner would deposit a self-attested copy of his Aadhar Card along with his Mobile Number before the learned court below, which he shall not change during the pendency of the case without prior permission of the court. (v) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the proceedings before the learned court below. 6. The instant bail application is allowed with the aforesaid conditions. 7. Let a copy of this order along with a copy of the affidavit filed with the bail petition be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e- mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 18.02.2026 Uploaded On: 18.02.2026 Mukul/-