Jharkhand High Court
B.A./8740/2026 of MD. GULAM RASUL Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 1 October 2026
) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8740 of 2026 Md. Gulam Rasul, aged about 55 years, S/o Md. Israil, Resident of Quarter no. B/04, Residential premises Peterwar, Block-cum circle office, P.O.+P.S.-Peterwar, District-Bokaro, (Jharkhand) … … Petitioner Versus
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:29607 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 8740 of 2026
Md. Gulam Rasul, aged about 55 years, S/o Md. Israil, Resident of Quarter no. B/04, Residential premises Peterwar, Block-cum circle office, P.O.+P.S.-Peterwar, District-Bokaro, (Jharkhand)
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
03/01.10.2026
Learned counsel for the petitioner is present.
2. Learned counsel for the Opp.Party-state Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Special P.P. is also present.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 04.07.2026 in connection with Special Vigilance Case No. 07 of 2026 arising out of ACB Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 6 of 2026, registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018), now pending in the court of learned Special Judge Vigilance, Dhanbad.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was the Head Clerk in the Block Office, and he has got no power to make any payment. He submits that as per the allegation, the petitioner has been caught red handed with bribe money on 04.07.2026 and since then he is in custody. The charge-sheet has been submitted on 27.08.2026, but charge has not been framed in view of the fact that the sanction order be is still awaited. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the money was deducted to the extent of Rs. 30,000/- as the contractor had not completed the work and out of grudge, he filed false case against the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the matter has been placed before the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro vide letter dated 24.08.2026 and as per the provision of the P.C. Act, he has been granted certain time for grant of sanction as per Section 19 of the Prevention of the ( 2026:JHHC:29607 )
2
Corruption Act.
6. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the fact that the petitioner was apprehended with bribe money after completing all the necessary formalities, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected at this stage.
7. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge or after six months from today, whichever is earlier.
8. The State is directed to communicated this order to the Deputy Commissioner of Bokaro, before whom the matter regarding grant of sanction is pending.
9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:01.10.2026 Nandini Date of Uploading: