Jharkhand High Court
B.A./8883/2026 of SARKAR HEMBRAM Vs STATE OF JHARKHAND on 23 September 2026
) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8883 of 2026 Sarkar Hembram aged about 29 years, Son of Nalin Hembram, resident of Village- Kharband, Tola- Tirilghutu, P.O.- Amlatola, P.S.- Kowali, District- East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus The State of
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:28686 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8883 of 2026
Sarkar Hembram aged about 29 years, Son of Nalin Hembram, resident of Village- Kharband, Tola- Tirilghutu, P.O.- Amlatola, P.S.- Kowali, District- East Singhbhum, Jharkhand.
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
… … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ritesh Kumar Mahto, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, A.P.P.
---
04/23.09.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with C.I.D. P.S. Case No. 07 of 2026, for the offences registered under Sections 316(2)/316(5)/318(4)/ 338/ 336(3)/ 340(2)/61(2) of the B.N.S. 2023 and 66 read with 43(a) (b) (d) (g) (h)
(i) (j)/66(C) (D) of I.T. Act, pending in the court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVIII cum Spl. Judge CID, Ranchi.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 27.04.2026 having no criminal antecedent and charge sheet has already been submitted for the offence as mentioned in the FIR itself. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner happens to be the relative of the prime accused and the prime accused had taken some documents from the petitioner for the purposes of sanction of loan for farming by the petitioner and has utilized the same for opening bank account in Mohrabadi, Ranchi. The amount siphoned off from the office of Superintendent of Police, Chaibasa has been credited in different accounts including the bank account of the petitioner. The details of the bank accounts have been mentioned in the impugned order itself. The learned counsel submits that in fact the petitioner is a victim.
4. During the course of argument and upon a query of this court, it is submitted that the mobile of the petitioner was linked with the bank account.
( 2026:JHHC:28686 ) 2
5. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the direct allegation against the petitioner in as much as the portion of the defrauded amount, which is public money, has been credited in the bank account of the petitioner and the same has been siphoned off and the petitioner happens to be the relative of the main accused Dev Narayan Murmu as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner himself, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected.
7. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through FAX/e-mail.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 23.09.2026 Uploaded on 28.09.2026 Binit/