Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Sudhir Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 March, 2026
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO(S).2797 OF 2026)
SUDHIR KUMAR SINGH APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND RESPONDENT
O R D E R
Leave granted.
This appeal challenges the order dated
20.01.2026 passed by the High Court of
Jharkhand at Ranchi in A.B.A No. 5781 of 2025.
This criminal appeal arises out of crime
registered pursuant to FIR No.09/2025 dated
06.08.2025 registered with P.S. Anti-
Corruption Bureau Hazaribagh, Dist. Ranchi in
respect of offences punishable under Sections
409, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the
Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(1)(c) and
Signature Not Verified
13(a)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the
Digitally signed by
BORRA LM VALLI
Date: 2026.03.25
17:46:50 IST
Reason:
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
1
Anticipating arrest in connection with
this crime, the appellant preferred A.B.A No.
5781 of 2025 for anticipatory bail before the
High Court. Said application having been
rejected by the High Court vide impugned order
dated 20.01.2026, the appellant has preferred
the instant appeal.
By order dated 18.02.2026, this Court
issued notice in the instant matter and also
directed that no coercive steps shall be taken
as against the appellant provided he
cooperates in the investigation.
We have heard learned counsel for the
appellant in support of the appeal and learned
counsel for the respondent-State.
Learned senior counsel for the appellant
submitted that the appellant has been
cooperating with the investigation and he also
appeared before the investigating officer on
24.02.2026 and thereafter he has not been
summoned; that by interim order dated
18.02.2026 this Court had granted interim
protection. In the circumstances, the interim
2
protection may be made absolute subject to the
terms to be imposed on the appellant.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State
also acknowledged the fact that the appellant
has been cooperating with the investigation
and in the circumstances she submitted that
appropriate orders may be made in the appeal.
Considering the circumstances on record,
in our view, the appellant is entitled to the
relief of anticipatory bail.
We, therefore, allow this appeal and set
aside the order passed by the High Court of
Jharkhand at Ranchi in A.B.A No.5781 of 2025
dated 20.01.2026.
We direct that in the event of arrest of
the appellant, the Arresting Officer shall
release the appellant on bail, subject to
furnishing cash security in the sum of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only)
with two like sureties.
It is directed that the appellant shall
extend complete cooperation in the ensuing
investigation.
3
The appellant shall not misuse his
liberty and shall not in any way influence the
witnesses or tamper with the material on
record.
With the aforesaid directions, the
Criminal Appeal is allowed.
……………………………………………………, J.
(B.V. NAGARATHNA)
……………………………………………………, J.
(UJJAL BHUYAN)
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 25, 2026.
4
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO(S).1859 OF 2026)
VIJAY PRATAP SINGH APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND RESPONDENT
O R D E R
Leave granted.
This appeal challenges the order dated
07.01.2026 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand
at Ranchi in Bail Application No.10414 of 2025.
This criminal appeal arises out of crime
registered pursuant to FIR No.09/2025 dated
06.08.2025 lodged with PS AC, Div: Sadar, District
Hazaribagh, registered under Sections 409, 420,
467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (“IPC”) and Sections 13(1)(c), 13(l)(d) read
with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988.
The appellant preferred an application for
regular bail through Bail Application No.
10414/2025 before the High Court of Jharkhand at
Ranchi.
5
By impugned order dated 07.01.2026, the High
Court rejected the plea for regular bail.
Therefore, the instant appeal has been preferred.
By order dated 06.02.2026, this Court issued
notice in the instant matter.
We have heard learned counsel for the
appellant in support of the appeal and learned
counsel for the respondent-State.
Learned senior counsel for the appellant
submitted that the appellant in this case is
similarly placed to the appellant in the appeal
arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2797 of 2026 in which
case this Court had granted the relief of
anticipatory bail. However, the appellant in this
case has been in jail since 05.10.2025; that the
investigation is completed and final report has
been filed. In the circumstances, continuation of
the appellant in jail may not be in the interest
of justice. He, therefore, submitted that the
impugned order may be set aside and the relief of
bail may be granted to the appellant herein
subject to the terms and conditions that may be
imposed.
Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondent-State with reference to the counter
6
affidavit contended that the allegations as
against the appellant herein are serious in
nature. In the circumstances, the relief of bail
may not be granted to him or otherwise, the
criminal proceeding would be frustrated. He
therefore, submitted that there is no merit in
this appeal and the same may be dismissed.
Considering the facts on record, in our
view, the case for regular bail is made out.
We, therefore, allow this appeal and direct
as under:
“The appellant shall be produced before the
concerned Trial Court as early as possible and the
Trial Court shall release him on bail, subject to
such conditions as it may deem appropriate to
impose to ensure his presence in the proceedings
arising out of FIR No. 09/2025 mentioned above.”
It is directed that the appellant shall
extend complete cooperation in the ensuing trial.
The appellant shall not misuse his liberty
and shall not in any way influence the witnesses
or tamper with the material on record.
The appellant shall deposit the passport, if
any, before the concerned Sessions Court.
In the event of there being any breach of
7
the conditions, liberty is reserved to therespondent-State to seek cancellation of the bail
that has been granted to the appellant.
With the aforesaid directions, the appeal is
allowed.
……………………………………………………, J.
(B.V. NAGARATHNA)……………………………………………………, J.
(UJJAL BHUYAN)
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 25, 2026.
8
ITEM NO.5 COURT NO.4 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NO(S).
2797/2026[ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED 20-01-2026 IN ABA NO. 5781/2025 PASSED BY THE
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI]SUDHIR KUMAR SINGH PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND RESPONDENT(S)
IA NO. 50209/2026 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
IA NO. 50210/2026 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.WITH
SLP(CRL) NO. 1859/2026 (II-A)
IA NO. 33046/2026 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.SLP(CRL) NO. 3317/2026 (II-A)
FOR ADMISSIONDate : 25-03-2026 These matters were called on for
hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYANFor Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, AOR
Mr. Ajit Singh, Adv.
Ms. Anukriti Tiwary, Adv.
Mr. Shrish Kohli, Adv.
Mr. Shubham Sahota, Adv.
Ms. Rewant Singh, Adv.
Mr. Devesh Ajmani, Adv.
Mr. Paras Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Shubhanginee Singh, Adv.
9
Mr. Shadan Farasat, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dubey, Adv.
Ms. Shuchi Singh, Adv.
Mr. Shuchi Singh, AOR
Mr. Md. Shahid Anwar, Adv.
Mr. Ujjwal Kumar Dubey, Adv.
Ms. Shivani Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Aman Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Aayush Kesarwani, Adv.
Mr. Jainendra Kumar, Adv.
Mr. R. Basant, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Aditya Dewan, Adv.
Ms. Himangi Kapoor, Adv.
Mr. Swetank Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Akash Rajeev, Adv.
Ms. Udita Singh, AOR
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Tulika Mukherjee, AOR
Ms. Pallavi Langar, AOR
Ms. Pragya Baghel, Adv.
Mr. Sujeet Kumar Chaubey, Adv.
Mr. Jayant Mohan, AOR
Ms. Meenakshi Chatterjee, Adv.
Ms. Adya Shree Dutta, Adv.
Ms. Dorjee Ongmu Lachungpa, Adv.
Mr. Priyanshu Teotia, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E RSLP (CRL.) NO(S).2797/2026:
Leave granted.
Appeal is allowed in terms of the signed
order, which is placed on file.
Pending application(s), if any, shall
stand disposed of.
10
SLP(CRL) NO. 1859/2026:
Leave granted.
Appeal is allowed in terms of the signed
order, which is placed on file.
Pending application(s), if any, shall
stand disposed of.
SLP(CRL) NO. 3317/2026:
Learned counsel for the petitioner sought
a week’s time to file rejoinder-affidavit to
the counter-affidavit filed by the
respondent(s)-State.
Hence, list on 10.04.2026.
(B. LAKSHMI MANIKYA VALLI) (DIVYA BABBAR)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
(TWO SIGNED ORDERS ARE PLACED ON FILE)11
