Santosh Kuamar @ Chittu vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 2644 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Santosh Kuamar @ Chittu vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite ... on 2 April, 2026

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

                                                                             2026:JHHC:9344




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                                  B.A. No. 1797 of 2026

               Santosh Kuamar @ Chittu, aged about 24 years, S/o late Rama Ram,
               R/o vill- Sudna, Patelnagar, P.O. & P.S. - Daltonganj, District -
               Palamau, Jharkhand                          ...    ...    Petitioner
                                       Versus
              The State of Jharkhand ...          ...       Opposite Party
                                       ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, Advocate

---

03/02.04.2026 Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 23.06.2025 in connection with Pandwa P.S. Case No.35/2025, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1619/2025, ST No.354/2025, registered under Sections 103 (1), 238, 61 (2), 3 (5) of the B.N.S., 2023, now pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge - VI, Palamau.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 23.06.2025 and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the petitioner has not been named in the F.I.R. and there is no recovery from the possession of the petitioner and merely on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Sonu Kumar, the petitioner has been implicated in this case. He has further submitted that the named accused Aman Singh has been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench in B.A. No.9872 of 2025 vide order dated 14.11.2025 and the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as stated in paragraph 17 of the bail application.

4. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail. However, the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the petitioner is not in dispute during the course of hearing.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that co-accused, who has been named in F.I.R, has already been enlarged on bail, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees

2026:JHHC:9344

twenty-five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge - VI, Palamau in connection with Pandwa P.S. Case No.35/2025, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1619/2025, ST No.354/2025, 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 even 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 trial court.

6. The instant application is allowed with the aforesaid conditions.

7. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through "FAX/email".

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:02.04.2026 Saurav/-

Date of Uploading:03.04.2026