SUMIT KUMAR VERMA v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
Court: High Court of Jharkhand
Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Jharkhand judgment dated 2026-05-06. SUMIT KUMAR VERMA v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 2749 of 2026 1. Sumit Kumar Verma, aged about 20 years, S/o: Lalmohan Rawani. 2. Suraj Kumar, aged about 21 years, S/o: Santosh Saw … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioners : Mr. Awanish Ranjan Mishra, Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, Spl. P. P. --- 06/06. 05. 2026 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are in custody since 02. 01. 2026 in connection with Hazaribag Bishnugarh P. S. Case No. 01 of 2026, for the alleged offence registered under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 316(2), 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and under Sections 66C, 66D and 67 of the Information Technology Act pending in the court of learned Judicial st Magistrate 1 Class, Hazaribag. 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent and charge has already been framed. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that there is no victim. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the matter arises out of an allegation of running a well-organized online fraud by operating websites in the name of escort services and in paragraph 36 of the case diary a victim has been found linked with the petitioner No. 1 on the basis of which the sex services were found to have been provided. 5. So far as the petitioner No. 2 is concerned, learned counsel submits that no victim as such has been identified. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the serious allegation and the victim having been identified so far as the petitioner No. 1 is concerned, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner No. 1 on bail. 7.
Accordingly, bail application with regard to petitioner No. 1 is accordingly rejected. 8. However, since no victim has been identified with respect to petitioner No. 2 and the petitioner No. 2 is having no criminal antecedent, the petitioner No. 2 namely Suraj Kumar is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the st satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate 1 Class, Hazaribag in connection with Hazaribag Bishnugarh P. S. Case No. 01 of 2026 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 his 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 court below. 9. The instant bail application, with respect to petitioner No. 2, is allowed with the aforesaid conditions. 10. Let a copy of this order along with a copy of the affidavit filed with the bail petition be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX/E-mail’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. ) 06. 05. 2026 Rakesh/- Uploaded on:-08. 05. 2026
Source: High Court of Jharkhand. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.