Jharkhand High Court
B.A./9358/2026 of LAW KUSH BHUIYA @ LAWKUSH KUMAR BHUIYA @ LAW KUSH KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 6 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9358 of 2026 Law Kush Bhuiya @ Lawkush Kumar Bhuiya @ Law Kush Kumar, aged about 20 years, S/o Saraju Bhuiyan, R/o Village- Borodiri, P.O. – Dwarika, PS- Pipra Tand, District- Palamau, State – 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:29896
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 9358 of 2026
Law Kush Bhuiya @ Lawkush Kumar Bhuiya @ Law Kush Kumar, aged about 20 years, S/o Saraju Bhuiyan, R/o Village- Borodiri, P.O.
– Dwarika, PS- Pipra Tand, District- Palamau, State – Jharkhand.
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Ms. Amrita Kumari, APP
---
03/06.10.2026
Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Panki P.S. Case No. 46 of 2026, registered under Sections 137(2) and 96 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, now pending in the court of learned CJM, Palamau.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 04.08.2026 and charge sheet has been submitted. He has further submitted that the petitioner is aged 20 years and victim is 17 years of age and the offence alleged is under Sections 96 and Section 137(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the impugned order to submit that the minor victim had herself stated in the court that she was having love affair with the petitioner and that they got married in a temple and then she was residing with the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the state has opposed the prayer for bail. However, the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner based on the impugned order itself are not in dispute.
6. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the fact that the charge sheet has already been submitted, the 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 CJM, Palamau in connection with Panki P.S. Case No. 46 of 2026, on the following
2026:JHHC:29896
2
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 even single default, the learned court shall cancel the bail bond furnished by the petitioner.
(iv) The petitioner will deposit a self-attested copy of his Aadhar Card along with his mobile number before the learned court which he will 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 trial court.
7. The instant application is allowed with the aforesaid conditions.
8. Let this order along with a copy of the affidavit filed with the bail petition be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e- mail.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:06.10.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:08.10.2026