Chhotu Pathak @ Banti Singh @ Sudarshan Kumar v. The State of Jharkhand

: Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, Advocate Mr. Amit Kr. Asthana, Advocate Mr. Alok Kr. Verma, Advocate : Mr. Satish Kr. Keshri, A.P.P : Mr. Rajesh Kr. Tiwari, Advocate Mr. Vishwanath Moon, Advocate Ms. Shalini Sahoo, Advocate …… Pronounced on 27th February 2026 1. The present Bail Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for grant of regular bail, who is in custody since

28.07.2025 in connection with Chas (M) P.S. Case No.101/2025 instituted for the offences under Sections 126(2), 304(2), 204, 205, 309(4), 316(2), 318(2), 61(2) of BNS 2023. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, as per the written application by the Informant dated 19.07.2025 that the informant by profession deals in business of land dealing and for the same purpose he came into contact with Pankaj @ Chhotu Pathak (i.e. the petitioner) through his friend Jai Singh for purchasing of six acres of land in Mugma (Nirsa) Dhanbad. However, when on 18.07.2025 he came to Dhanbad from Ranchi by his vehicle along with his friend Deepak Tiwari and Maninder Kumar and on 18.07.2025 at about 10:00 AM and when they reached Khalsa Hotel at Govindpur then he contacted Pathak Ji (i.e. the petitioner) on his mobile 1 and after 15 minutes Pathak Ji reached along with driver namely JK. Thereafter, the Informant along with his friend sat in the vehicle with the petitioner to see the land and thereafter for executing land agreement the petitioner demanded Rs. One Crore. Then the informant told him that he did not have cash as such bank accounts were provided to transfer money and then the Informant transferred the money of Rs.50,00,000/- in YES Bank Account and Rs.10,00,000/- in SBI account. Thereafter, the money was withdrawn on the same day and was put infront of the Informant and when no paper was given to the Informant then the petitioner refused to give money and the petitioner also told him that he will escort him to Ranchi but in midway the petitioner left and the Informant at Bijulia Bazar six persons in police dress stopped the vehicle of the Informant and two persons sat in the Informant vehicle and when the Informant demanded ID Cards of the police then accused persons assaulted him and on hulla when villagers tries to stop the vehicle then the accused persons fled away with vehicle after breaking toll gate. 3. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence. It is submitted that the incident is of 18.07.2025 morning but the FIR was registered after much delay of more than that 24 hours on

19.07.2025. It is submitted that the petitioner is a respectable person doing business of goods vehicle transportation and food product distribution to sustain his family. It is submitted that the petitioner’s name is Sudarshan Kumar, resident of Lakhirsarai, Bihar but the police during investigation gave several alias names to the petitioner on their own for the reason best known to them. It 2 is submitted that the investigation of the case is very lopsided the police has shown that the petitioner was arrested on 27.07.2025 from Deoghar and sent to Judicial Custody on 28.07.2025, however, the petitioner was arrested on 28.07.2025, but actually, the petitioner was arrested from Lakhisarai on 20.07.2025 and the same is evident from the RTI reply given to the vide memo no.4390/2025 dated 07.11.2025. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in this case on the basis of one mobile number being 8159843458 while nothing investigation has come to show that the petitioner was the owner of said mobile number or he has used that number or the said number has been recovered from the petitioner. It is further submitted that the confessional statement of the petitioner has been obtained by duress however in the confessional statement some money double scheme has been recorded in which the Informant has also participated. It is further submitted that no money has been recovered from the petitioner and he was also not present at the place of occurrence as stated in the FIR. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied in the case of Directorate of Enforcement vs. Subhash Sharma reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 240 at Para-7 and 8. 6. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since

28.07.2025 and hence he may be enlarged on bail. 7. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer of bail of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is the main accused in this case. It is submitted that the petitioner in his confessional statement has admitted his involvement in the cheating of Informant and used to commit the offence in an organized manner and cheat people on giving assurance of money 3 to double the money within short period. It is further submitted in his confessional statement by the petitioner that he used to keep forged SIM card for using the mobile phone. It is further submitted that the petitioner has got one another criminal antecedent besides this case and hence the prayer of bail of the petitioner may be rejected. 8. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and from perusal of the records of this case, it appears that the petitioner is the main accused in this case and is named in the FIR. 9. It also appears from the confessional statement of the petitioner that he has cheated the Informant and other persons in organized manner by giving assurance to make double the amount of the victims and using forged SIM cards for using mobile phones. 10. It appears that the petitioner has got one another criminal antecedent in Bokaro Sector 12 P.S. Case No.06/2024 for the offences under Sections 406/420/34 of IPC. 11. It also appears that the petitioner has relied in the case of Directorate of Enforcement vs. Subhash Sharma reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 240 at Para-7 and 8 as follow:- “Para-7:- The requirement of clause 2 of Article 22 has been incorporated in Section 57 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C). There is no inconsistency between the provisions of the PMLA and Section 57 of Cr.P.C. Hence, by virtue of Section 65 of the PMLA, Section 57 of the Cr.P.C. applies to the proceedings under the PMLA. Para-8:- Once a Court, while dealing with a bail application, finds that the fundamental rights of the accused under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India have been violated while arresting the accused or after arresting him, it is the duty of the Court dealing with the bail application to release the accused on bail. The reason is that the arrest in such cases stands vitiated. It is the duty of every Court to uphold the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution.” 4 However, the above judgement is not applicable on the facts and circumstances of this case. The date of arrest of the petitioner has to be seen during the trial and also the application filed by the police at the time of remanding him in this case before the learned Court below. 12. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to grant the bail to the petitioner. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. 13. 14. Thus, the B.A. No.11196 of 2025 is, hereby, dismissed. However, the learned Trial Court is directed to conclude the Trial expeditiously as early as possible. Dated :- 27.02.2026 Nishant/- (Sanjay Prasad, J.) 5