Jharkhand High Court
B.A./9009/2026 of PAWAN KUMAR RAJAK @ PAWAN RAJAK Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 7 October 2026
) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9009 of 2026 ------ Pawan Kumar Rajak @ Pawan Rajak, aged about 27 years, son of Sri Mahesh Rajak, resident of Village-Shivpur, P.O.-Barhi, P.S.-Barhi, Dist.-Hazaribagh … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
( 2026:JHHC:30005 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 9009 of 2026
------ Pawan Kumar Rajak @ Pawan Rajak, aged about 27 years, son of Sri Mahesh Rajak, resident of Village-Shivpur, P.O.-Barhi, P.S.-Barhi, Dist.-Hazaribagh … Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
: Mr. Pankaj Verma, Advocate For the State
: Mr. Satish Kr. Keshri, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.03 Dated- 07.10.2026
Heard the parties.
The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Dhurwa P.S. Case No.88 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under sections 395/365/120B of the Indian Penal Code.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner who is also known as Sonu Pawan Rajak as per the supplementary affidavit 30.09.2026 abducted the informant and looted his truck containing 1000 cartons of wine. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the co-accused persons on whose confession looted truck was recovered have been admitted to bail. It is next submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in paragraph no.19 of the bail application. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 17.08.2026, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 01 of the bail application. It is next submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.
Learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that keeping in view the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of first abducting and then looting the truck of the informant after causing hurt to the informant, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be admitted to bail.
Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail, this Court is not inclined to admit the petitioner on bail at this stage.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the abovenamed petitioner is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
07.10.2026 Gunjan-