Jharkhand High Court
B.A./9326/2026 of BHARAT PRASAD RAJAK Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 6 October 2026
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.9326 of 2026 ------ Bharat Prasad Rajak, aged about 56 years, S/o Late Birju Prasad Rajak, resident of Vill – Near Shiv Mandir, ISM, Rahargora, Dhaiya, P.O. + P.S. – Dhanbad, District – Dhanbad, Jharkhand. .... .... …. Petitioner
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:29923] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No.9326 of 2026
------ Bharat Prasad Rajak, aged about 56 years, S/o Late Birju Prasad Rajak, resident of Vill – Near Shiv Mandir, ISM, Rahargora, Dhaiya, P.O. + P.S. – Dhanbad, District – Dhanbad, Jharkhand. .... .... …. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
.... .... .... Opposite Party
------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate For the State
: Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Amitabh Prasad, Advocate
------ Order No:-02 Dated:-06-10-2026
Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 306 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, 120-B & 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has retired from the post of Postal Assistant and while in service, he in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons, was involved in serious financial fraud involving closure of postal saving accounts and misappropriation of Rs.47,08,000/- through the alleged forged and fabricated documents. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is then submitted that as mentioned in internal page No.7 of the order dated 07.09.2026 passed in Bail Petition No. 682 of 2026 that in the departmental inquiry, the petitioner was found responsible for violation of the prescribed departmental rules and liability has been fixed upon him, pursuant to which an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- has been recovered from his salary. It is also submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 03.08.2026 as mentioned in para-21 of the instant bail application. It is next submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-22 of the instant bail application. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the trial of the case and also undertakes not to annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail.
Learned counsel appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the informant oppose the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
Considering the facts of this case, the above-named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 306 of 2019 with the condition that he will co-operate with the trial of the case and furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card in the court below with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the trial of the case and he will not annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated:-06.10.2026 Saroj/