Rahul Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand .... Opposite ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 934 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Rahul Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand .... Opposite ... on 10 February, 2026

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

                                                                         2026:JHHC:3461




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                           A.B.A. No. 717 of 2026
                                                ----

1. Rahul Kumar, aged about 21 years, son of Ravindra Kumar Ram, resident of Baralota, PO and PS - Medininagar, District - Palamau

2. Dilip Kumar, aged about 36 years, son of Mahendra Ram, resident of village - Nawadih, Tenar, PO - Gentha, PS -

              Lesliganj, District - Palamau                .... Petitioners
                                         --       Versus   --
             The State of Jharkhand                        .... Opposite Party
                                                ----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Petitioners :- Mr. Niraj Kishore, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate

----

03/10.02.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well

as the learned counsel appearing for the State.

2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection

with Kandi P.S. Case No.17 of 2022 for the alleged offences

registered under Sections 457 and 380 of Indian Penal code

pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,

Garhwa.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that

the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case and the

name of the petitioners have come on the confessional statement.

On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be

granted to the petitioners.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer

2026:JHHC:3461

and submits that allegations are there of committing theft of idol of

Goddess Radha and Lord Krishna which was about 9 inches and the

name of the petitioners has come in the course of investigation. He

further submits that anticipatory bail of co-accused persons has

been rejected by the High Court and that has come in the order of

learned Sessions Judge.

5. Looking into the contents of the FIR it transpires that the

allegations are there of theft of idol of Goddess Radha and Lord

Krishna which was about 9 inches and the name of the petitioners

have surfaced in the course of investigation and the anticipatory bail

application of co-accused persons has been rejected by the co-

ordinate Bench of this Court.

6. In the attending facts and circumstances of this case, I am

not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, hence, the

prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is hereby rejected.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 10.02.2026 Sangam/