Jharkhand High Court
Chandan Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 11 September, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
( 2025:JHHC:28278 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.1707 of 2025
------
Chandan Kumar, aged about 37 years s/o Arbind Kumar, R/o
House No.133, Sarovar Nagar, Near Surya Mandir, Devi Mandap
Road, Ratu Road, PO Hehal, PS Sukhdeo Nagar, Dist.-Ranchi
(Jharkhand).
... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Kishore Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, Addl.P.P.
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with a
prayer for grant bail after setting aside the order dated 17.05.2025 passed
by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class-IV, Ranchi in connection
with G.R. Case No.1241 of 2020 arising out of Sukhdeonagar P.S.Case
No.284 of 2019 whereby and whereunder the application of the petitioner
for grant of bail under Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has
cheated the informant to the tune of Rs.42,50,000/-, after forging the
documents. The regular bail application of the petitioner was rejected by
coordinate bench of this Court in B.A. No.8781 of 2025. The petitioner
filed an application under Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. contending therein
( 2025:JHHC:28278 )
that charge has been framed by the trial court on 03.01.2025. The first date
for taking the evidence of the prosecution was fixed on 16.01.2025, two
charge sheet witnesses have been examined on 25.03.2025 and 08.04.2025
respectively, six witnesses whose names appears in the charge sheet are
still to be examined. The trial Court considering the nature of the offence
and complicity of the petitioner in the offence was not inclined to enlarge
the petitioner on bail, hence, rejected prayer for bail of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the order of the
coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Mandal @
Santosh Mandal vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2017 SCC OnLine
Jhar 903, submits that therein the coordinate bench of this Court, relying
upon the judgment of a court, the name of which has not been specified
nor the date of the order has been specified, but only name of the parties
i.e. Nehul Prakashbhai Shah vs. State of Gujarat in Criminal Reference
No.2 of 2011 has been mentioned; went on to hold that it is true that the
accused does not gain an indefeasible right for being released on bail
under Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C., but learned Magistrate cannot refuse such
right without giving appropriate reasons for such refusal and submits that
in this case, also the learned Magistrate having rejected the prayer for bail
without giving appropriate reason, hence, the petitioner be admitted to
bail.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of
this Court in the case of Subhojeet Dey vs. State of Jharkhand reported
in Cr.M.P. No.2723 of 2023 dated 30.10.2023 and submits that in the facts
( 2025:JHHC:28278 )
of that case as there was no plausible reason assigned by the learned
Magistrate in giving bail to the petitioner, this Court granted bail to the
accused person of that case. It is lastly submitted that the prayer as prayed
for in this Cr.M.P., be allowed.
6. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand
vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant
Cr.M.P and submits that one of the relevant considerations under Section
437(6) of Cr.P.C. is the punishment prescribed for the offence. It is next
submitted that one of the offence involving in this case is punishable
under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code which prescribes punishment
of imprisonment for life and the petitioner has just completed one year in
custody and overwhelming evidence has come against him during the
examination of two witnesses in this case, hence, there is every chance of
the petitioner tampering with evidence or threatening the remaining
witnesses and absconding if release on bail. It is next submitted that since
the regular bail of the petitioner was rejected by a coordinate bench of this
Court and the said order has not been challenged by the petitioners, so,
the learned Magistrate has not specifically mentioned the other reasons
for refusing to grant bail to the petitioner. Therefore, it is submitted that
this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.
7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after
carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is
pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu vs. The state of Chhattisgarh reported in
( 2025:JHHC:28278 )
2025 INSC 242 referred to the judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court
in the case of Nehul Prakashbhai Shah vs. State of Gujarat reported in
(2012) 53 (3) GLR 2685 in which Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala; as his
Lordship then was, a part of the bench and it has been observed in that
case that it would be relevant to take into consideration the punishment
prescribed for the offence for which accused is being tried in comparison
to the time that the trial is likely to take, regard being had to the factors
like volume of evidence, number of witnesses, workload on the Court,
availability of prosecutor, number of accused being tried with accused
and their availability for trial etc.
8. Now, it is common knowledge that there is acute shortage of public
prosecutors in the State of Jharkhand in spite of all efforts made in PIL
filed in this Court. In the judgeship of Ranchi, through which judgeship
this case belongs, there are only 16 public prosecutors and Assistant
Prosecutor who attend the 52 Courts of Judicial Officers including the
Special Courts; as per data available on the website of Civil Court, Ranchi.
9. Now coming to the consideration of punishment, as rightly
submitted by the learned Addl.P.P. that the offences involved punishable
under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code prescribes a punishment for
imprisonment for life and the petitioner has just completed one year in
custody. The workload of the Courts at Ranchi is needless to mention is
quite high. Keeping in view, the conservative culture prevalent, normally
the Magistrate does not highlight the factors like workload of the court,
non-availability of the prosecutors in the rejection order of the petition for
( 2025:JHHC:28278 )
bail under Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C.. So, considering the aforesaid facts,
this Court is of the considered view that no illegality has been committed
by the learned trial court in rejecting the prayer for bail made by the
petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order has been passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, First Class-IV, Ranchi do not warrant interference in
exercise of the power under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023.
10. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 11th of September, 2025
AFR/ Abhiraj
