B.A./2511/2026 of ARUN KUMAR ALIAS ARUN PATHAK Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 23 September 2026

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Binod Kumar Singh

….. Opp.Parties

---------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. B.M. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate For the State : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, Advocate

---------- Oral Order in Court

07/23.09.2026 The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for grant of regular bail, who is in custody in connection with Barhi P.S. Case No. 328 of 2025, corresponding to Sessions Trial Case No.79 of 2026, instituted for the offences under Sections140(1) and 61(2) of B.N.S., now pending in the Court of learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-X, Hazaribagh.

2. The Informant-Binod Kumar Singh had lodged a F.I.R. that his son Saurav Kumar Singh had gone to fetch milk from Deochanda More and did not return for a long time and he was traceless. In the meantime, a phone call was received from a mobile number of his son Saurav Kumar Singh by the abductors demanding Rs.5,00,000/- as ransom. Thereafter, the search was going on, but his son could not be found then the Informant had lodged F.I.R. It is also stated that the Informant had deposited Rs.17,000/- by way of phone pe to another phone number-8799260437.

3. Heard Mr. B.M. Tripathi, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, learned A.P.P.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that the petitioner is merely a service provider of the vehicle and on the alleged date of occurrence, i.e. on 09.09.2025, his car was taken on rent by co-accused Tausif Umar. It is submitted that even a sum of Rs.17,000/- was deposited in the Bank Account of one Shabnam Praween, who is the wife of the aforesaid co-accused-Tausif Umar. It is submitted that co- accused Tausif Umar, who is the main accused, has been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay) of this Court vide order dated 14.09.2026 passed in B.A. No. 6858 of 2026. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 10.09.2025 and hence, the petitioner may be granted bail.

5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R., but later on he was apprehended with the victim boy by the police and his confessional statement has been recorded at Para 8 of the Case Diary, in which he has confessed his guilt for conniving with the other co-accused-Tausif Umar and other accused persons, i.e. Driver (Name not disclosed and other accused persons (name not disclosed). It is further submitted by learned A.P.P. that the petitioner has got one criminal antecedent in N.D.P.S. Case No. 09 of 2019. Hence, prayer for bail of the petitioner may be rejected.

6. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been acquitted in the said N.D.P.S. Case No. 09 of 2019 by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro and the judgment of acquittal dated 23.06.2025 is enclosed as Annexure-4 to the supplementary affidavit dated 01.04.2026 filed on behalf of the petitioner.

7. Perused the F.I.R. and the records of this case and considered the submissions of both sides.

8. It appears that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R.

9. It appears from the statement of the victim, namely Saurav Kumar Singh, recorded at para 33 that co-accused Tausif Umar and this petitioner had forced him to make telephonic calls to his family members and on the instruction of co-accused Tausif Umar, his cousin brother Vivek Kumar has sent Rs.17,000/- to the mobile phone number 87992437. It further appears that the said mobile number belongs to Shabnam Praveen, who is the wife of co-accused Tausif Umar, which is mentioned at Para No. 13 of the Case Diary, which contains the statement of the witness Shubham Kumar (i.e. younger brother of the victim Saurav Kumar Singh and son of the Informant).

10. It appears that the co-accused Tausif Umar was the mastermind of the occurrence and he has been released on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay) of this Court vide order dated 14.09.2026 passed in B.A. No. 6858 of 2026.

11. It appears that the petitioner is in custody since 10.04.2025, i.e. more than one year.

12. Accordingly, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and considering the fact that bail was granted to the co-accused Tausif Umar by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and also considering the custody of the petitioner, the petitioner, namely Arun Kumar @ Arun Pathak is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each in connection with Barhi P.S. Case No. 328 of 2025, corresponding to Sessions Trial Case No.79 of 2026, to the satisfaction of learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-X, Hazaribagh /or his Successor Court, subject to the conditions that one of the bailors must be own relative of the petitioner and the petitioner shall not get involved in such type of criminal activities, failing which the prosecution will be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his bail.

Thus, this B.A. No. 2511 of 2026 is allowed.

(Sanjay Prasad, J.) s.m. Dated 23.09.2026