Jharkhand High Court
A.B.A./5450/2026 of VIKASH KUMAR Vs STATE OF JHARKHAND on 29 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.5450 of 2026 ------ Vikash Kumar, aged about 28 years, S/o Upendra Saw, R/o – Near DNC Store, Jealgora No.2, Kunnidi, P.O. Bhulan Bararee, P.S. Jorapokhar, District Dhanbad. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of 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:29325] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.5450 of 2026
------ Vikash Kumar, aged about 28 years, S/o Upendra Saw, R/o – Near DNC Store, Jealgora No.2, Kunnidi, P.O. Bhulan Bararee, P.S. Jorapokhar, District Dhanbad. .... .... …. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
.... .... .... Opposite Party
------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate For the State
: Mrs. Mohua Palit, Addl.P.P.
------ Order No:-02 Dated:-29-09-2026
Heard the parties.
Apprehending his arrest in connection with Gomia P.S. Case No.76 of 2025 registered under Sections 331(3), 305, 112(2), 317(2) of the B.N.S. 2023, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is a habitual receiver of stolen property knowing the same to be stolen. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in this case only on the basis of the statement of the co-accused to the effect that the petitioner is the purchaser of the stolen property i.e. gold and silver jewelleries. It is also submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-14 of the instant Anticipatory Bail Application. It is further submitted that the petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel appearing for the State on the other hand opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case for recovery of the stolen property of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.
Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case for recovery of the stolen property of the case, this Court is not inclined to give the privileges of anticipatory bail to the above-named petitioner.
Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the above- named petitioner is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated:-29.09.2026 Saroj/