Jharkhand High Court
A.B.A./5498/2026 of VISHWAJEET SINGH @ VISHNU SHANKAR SINGH Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 30 September 2026
) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.5498 of 2026 ------ Vishwajeet Singh @ Vishnu Shankar Singh, aged about 33 years, son of Shyam Bihari Singh, resident of Bishunpur Road, Near Durga Mandir, P.O.-Jhumri Telaiya & P.S.-Telaiya, District-Koderma. .... .... ….
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:29478 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.5498 of 2026
------ Vishwajeet Singh @ Vishnu Shankar Singh, aged about 33 years, son of Shyam Bihari Singh, resident of Bishunpur Road, Near Durga Mandir, P.O.-Jhumri Telaiya & P.S.-Telaiya, District-Koderma.
.... .... …. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
.... .... .... Opposite Party
------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arpit Kumar, Advocate
For the State
: Mr. Azeemuddin, Addl.P.P
------
Order No.02 Dated- 30-09-2026
Heard the parties.
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Telaiya P.S. Case No.83 of 2026 registered under Sections 308(5), 115(2), 117(2), 117(3), 118(1), 109(1), 126(2), 127(2), 303(2), 352, 351(2) & 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons demanded extortion of Rs.20,000/- per month from the informant and the co-accused Ankur Singh assaulted the informant with the butt of a pistol on his head causing injury, while the petitioner put a knife on the neck of the informant and the co-accused Ankur Singh also took away Rs.10,000/- cash from the informant. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is then submitted that the petitioner was involved in another case, apart from this case. It is next submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that keeping in view the direct and specific allegation against the petitioner and in view of his criminal antecedent, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding, if released on bail yes. It is further submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case for recovery of the stolen property and the arms used in the alleged offence. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.
Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and chance of his absconding if released on bail as well as the requirement of custodial interrogation of the petitioner during the investigation of the case in order to find out the details of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above- named petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 30/09/2026 Abhiraj/