Jharkhand High Court
B.A./6744/2026 of SAURABH KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH A.C.B.(VIGILANCE) on 30 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 6744 of 2026 Saurabh Kumar, aged about 51 years, son of Madan Mohan Prasad, resident of Village Inpey, P.O. and P.S. -Jamui, District- Jamui, State- Bihar. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through A.C.B.
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:29389
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 6744 of 2026
Saurabh Kumar, aged about 51 years, son of Madan Mohan Prasad, resident of Village Inpey, P.O. and P.S. -Jamui, District- Jamui, State- Bihar.
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through A.C.B. (Vigilance)
… … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl. P.P.
---
08/30.09.2026
Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 18.12.2025 in connection with Dumka A.C.B. P.S. Case No. 04 of 2025 corresponding to Vigilance Case No. 01 of 2026, registered for the offence punishable under Section 7 (a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amended Act, 2018), now pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-Special Judge, A.C.B., Dumka.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected earlier on 23.04.2026 in B.A. No. 2216 of 2026. He submits that an observation was made by this court that the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge. He submits that charge has already been framed on 23rd September 2026. A photocopy of the certified copy of the order framing charge has been placed on record.
4. Learned counsel for the state has opposed the prayer for bail. However, the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not in dispute.
5. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, this Court finds that the petitioner is in custody since 18.12.2025 and charge has already been framed and in view of the liberty given to the petitioner vide order dated 23.04.2026 in B.A. No. 2216 of 2026, the charge having been framed, the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on
2026:JHHC:29389
2
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 Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-Special Judge, A.C.B., Dumka in connection with Dumka A.C.B. P.S. Case No. 04 of 2025 corresponding to Vigilance Case No. 01 of 2026, on 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 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.
6. The instant application is allowed with the aforesaid conditions.
7. 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:30.09.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:01.10.2026