Jharkhand High Court
Subash Rajak @ Subhash Rajak vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 October, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No.586 of 2025
Subash Rajak @ Subhash Rajak, S/o Ganeshi Rajak, age 37 years, R/o
village- Raghunathpur, Ward No.15, P.O. Mahua Bazar, P.S.+ District-
Saharsa, Bihar ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Kanchan Ojha, S/o Asharfi Ojha, Assistant Manager, SIS Cash
Security Pvt. Ltd, District-Palamau ... Opp. Parties
With
Cr. Revision No.1485 of 2023
With
Cr. Revision No.111 of 2024
With
Cr. Revision No.02 of 2025
Suresh Kumar Mehta, aged about 28 years, son of Laxman Mahto,
resident of village Parsa, P.O. Kishunpur P.S. Kishunpur, District Supaul
(Bihar) ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. SIS, Cash Services Pvt. Ltd. Through, Assistant Manager, Kanchan
Ojha, resident of village Lalgarh, P.O.+P.S. Lalgarh, District-Palamau
... Opp. Parties
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Pandey, Advocate.
Mr. Anil Kr. Sinha, Advocate
(Advocates in respective cases)
For the State : Ms. Sharda Kumar, AC to PP
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Avik Ghose, Advocate
------
8/14.10.2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners in respective cases and
learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.
I.A. No. 5893 of 2025 in Cr. Revision No.586 of 2025
2. This interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the
petitioner for grant of his bail, during the pendency of this
criminal revision, after suspension of Judgement dated
04.12.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.80 of 2023 by
learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner-VIII, Ranchi whereby the
learned Court has been pleased to dismiss the said appeal
affirming the Judgment & order of Sentence dated 10.04.2023
passed in GR. Case No. 861/2020 (arising out of Sadar PS.-
578/2019) passed by learned C.J.M., Ranchi whereby the
learned Court has found this Petitioner guilty of offence U / s -
409/34, 420/34, 467/34, 468/34, 471/34 and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for 7 years and a fine of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-(Rupees
One Crore only) and in default thereof S.I. for six months U/s -
409/34 of the IPC, R.I. for seven years and a fine of Rs.
10000/- in default thereof S.I. for Six months U/s 420/34 of the
IPC, R.I. for Seven Years and a Fine of Rs. 10000 / in default
thereof S.I. For Six months U/s - 467/34 of the IPC, R.I. for
Seven years and a fine of Rs. 10000 /- in default thereof S.I. for
six months Us 468/34 of the IPC and RI for two years under
section 471/34 of the IPC. All the sentences of imprisonment
were ordered to run concurrently.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is
lying in judicial custody since 31.12.2019, i.e. 6 years 04
months, which is more than half of the sentence. He further
submits that it appears from the entire statement of the
prosecution witnesses that the entire story of the informant and
the investigation of the police is highly suspicious as such the
entire case of the informant has been prepared in a mechanical
manner by the informant by way of preparing false and
fabricated documents in connivance with the police only in
order to adjust their pre-existing, deficits of the informant
company. He further submits that other identical co-accused
has been granted the privilege of bail in I.A. No.460 of 2024
filed in Criminal Revision No.1485 of 2023 and in I.A.
No.1425 of 2024 filed in Criminal Revision No.111 of 2024.
He further submits that petitioner has no criminal antecedent.
He then submits that in the normal course, the revision may not
be taken up in near future, as such he may kindly be granted
bail during pendency of the criminal revision.
4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for
suspension of sentence and releasing the petitioner on bail and
submitted that the petitioner has been convicted for various
sections of the IPC and the allegation involved the unlawful
gain of Rupees Four Crore and odd and therefore, the petitioner
may not be allowed the privilege of bail.
5. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, gone through
the records of the case, noted the arguments and gone through
the custodial period, I am inclined to release the petitioner,
named above, on bail, during the pendency of this criminal
revision, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (rupees
twenty-five thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Ranchi in connection
with G.R. Case No. 861 of 2020 arising out of Sadar P.S. Case
No. 578 of 2019.
6. Accordingly, I.A. No. 5893 of 2025 stands allowed and
disposed of.
I.A. No. 2534 of 2025 in Cr. Revision No.02 of 2025
7. This interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the
petitioner for grant of his bail, during the pendency of this
criminal revision, after suspension of Judgement dated
04.12.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 2023 by
learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner-VIII, at Ranchi whereby
the learned Court has been pleased to dismiss the said appeal
affirming the Judgment & order of Sentence dated 10.04.2023
passed in GR. Case No. 861/2020 (arising out of Sadar PS.-
578/2019) passed by learned C.J.M., Ranchi whereby the
learned Court has found this Petitioner guilty of offence U / s -
409/34, 420/34, 467/34, 468/34, 471/34 and sentenced to
undergo R.1. for 7 years and a fine of Rs. 50,00,000/- and in
default thereof S.I. for six months U/s - 409/34 of the IPC, R.I.
for seven years and a fine of Rs. 10000 /- in default thereof S.I.
for Six months U/s 420/34 of the IPC, R.I. for Seven Years and
a Fine of Rs. 10000 / in default thereof S.I. For Six months U/s -
467/34 of the IPC, R.I. for Seven years and a fine of Rs. 10000
/- in default thereof S.I. for six months U/s 468/34 of the IPC
and RI for two years under section 471/34 of the IPC. All the
sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is
lying in judicial custody since 10.04.2023. He further submits
that it appears from the entire statement of the prosecution
witnesses that the entire story of the informant and the
investigation of the police is highly suspicious as such the entire
case of the informant has been prepared in a mechanical manner
by the informant by way of preparing false and fabricated
documents in connivance with the police only in order to adjust
their pre-existing, deficits of the informant company. He further
submits that other identical co-accused has been granted the
privilege of bail in I.A. No.460 of 2024 filed in Criminal
Revision No.1485 of 2023 and in I.A. No.1425 of 2024 filed in
Criminal Revision No.111 of 2024. He further submits that
petitioner has no criminal antecedent. He then submits that in
the normal course, the revision may not be taken up in near
future, as such he may kindly be granted bail during pendency
of the criminal revision.
9. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for
suspension of sentence and releasing the petitioner on bail and
submitted that the petitioner has been convicted for various
sections of the IPC and the allegation involved the unlawful
gain of Rupees Four Crore and odd and therefore, the petitioner
may not be allowed the privilege of bail.
10. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, gone through
the records of the case, noted the arguments and gone through
the custodial period, I am inclined to release the petitioner,
named above, on bail, during the pendency of this criminal
revision, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (rupees
twenty-five thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Ranchi in connection
with G.R. Case No. 861 of 2020 arising out of Sadar P.S. Case
No. 578 of 2019.
11. Accordingly, I.A. No. 2534 of 2025 stands allowed and
disposed of.
12. Let the aforesaid Revisions appear eight weeks after Diwali
vacation under the appropriate heading.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
14.10.2025
R.Kumar
