B.A./10351/2026 of MUNNA RAJ Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 5 November 2026

( 2026:JHHC:32499 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

B.A. No.10351 of 2026

------ Munna Raj, aged about 29 years, son of Subhash Paswan, Resident of Village-Shahganj, Mahendru, P.O.-Mahendru, P.S.-Sultanganj, District-Patna, Bihar.

.... .... …. Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

.... .... .... Opposite Party

------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate

: Mr. Priyanshu Kr. Singh, Advocate

: Mr. Sabi Uddin, Advocate

For the State

: Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P

------

Order No.02 Dated- 05-11-2026

Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Tatisilway P.S. Case No.58 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under sections 112(2) of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 10/11 of Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the Centre I.T. of a Venue for conducting the recruitment test for SSC Constable GD, 2026 was involved in adoption of malpractice by one of the candidates namely Mritunjay Kumar Yadav who paid Rs.6,00,000/- to another individual to qualify in the said examination. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the main allegation is against co-accused-Sanjeet Kumar who was the invigilator, who intentionally restarted the computer system probably to facilitate remote access of the computer system, to mirror the screen so that malpractice can be committed. It is then submitted that there is no direct allegation against the petitioner and though charge sheet has been submitted in this case but no witness has been examined as yet. It is next submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in paragraph no.29 of the bail application. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 22.05.2026, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 30 of the bail application. It is further submitted that the co-accused has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 18.09.2026 in B.A. No.8758 of 2026. It is next submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the trial of the case and further undertakes that he will not annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. The learned P.P. opposes the prayer for bail. Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am inclined to enlarge the abovenamed petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.J.C.-VI, Ranchi, in connection with Tatisilway P.S. Case No.58 of 2026 with the condition that the petitioner will cooperate with the trial of the case and will furnish his mobile number and a copy of his Aadhar Card in the court below with the undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the trial of the case, with further condition that he will not annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 05/11/2026 Abhiraj/