Jharkhand High Court
B.A./8842/2026 of SATYAJEET PARMAR @ SUNNY @ SATYAJEET SINGH PARMAR Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 23 September 2026
) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8842 of 2026 Satyajeet Parmar @ Sunny @ Satyajeet Singh Parmar aged about 40 years, S/o Satnam Singh, R/o H. No. 60, Munshi Mohalla, Mannan Gali, Mango, P.O. and P.S. Mango, Town Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum … …
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:28682 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8842 of 2026
Satyajeet Parmar @ Sunny @ Satyajeet Singh Parmar aged about 40 years, S/o Satnam Singh, R/o H. No. 60, Munshi Mohalla, Mannan Gali, Mango, P.O. and P.S. Mango, Town Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
… … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Karamjit Singh Chhabra, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Someshwar Roy, A.P.P.
---
06/23.09.2026 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 Mango P.S. Case No. 110 of 2026, for the offences registered under Sections 69, 352 and 351(2) of the B.N.S. 2023, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the victim is 27 years of age and petitioner is 40 years of age. The FIR has been lodged by the victim herself and it is alleged that victim is a teacher and since 2023, the petitioner and the victim had friendship and they used to visit the house of each other. It is alleged that the petitioner established physical relationship with the victim not only in the house but also in the Hotel on the pretext of marriage and ultimately refused to marry. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charge sheet has been submitted on 09.07.2026. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent and the petitioner is in custody since 12.05.2026.
4. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner is a married person.
5. To which, the counsel for the petitioner submits that the victim very well knew that the petitioner is a married person as in the FIR itself she has stated that the petitioner had called the victim in his in- laws place.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that charge sheet has already been submitted, the
( 2026:JHHC:28682 ) 2
petitioner above named is directed to be enlarged on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty-five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, in connection with Mango P.S. Case No. 110 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 his 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 court below.
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.
8. The instant bail application is allowed with the aforesaid conditions.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 23.09.2026 Uploaded on 28.09.2026 Binit/