Back to feed Read the full judgment
IndiaCriminal
Ajit Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decided
- Oct 5, 2026
- Citation
- 2026 INSC 1084
- Judges
- Ujjal Bhuyan, Atul S. Chandurkar
AI breakdown
- A worker claimed a government assistant demanded a ₹5,000 bribe to release his unpaid salary.
- The Supreme Court found there was not enough proof that the assistant demanded or received the bribe.
- Without clear evidence of bribery demand, the conviction could not stand.
Outcome
Resultantly, the appeal is allowed.
Taken from the judgment's conclusion. Check the full text for the exact order.
Parties
Applicant
Ajit Kumar
Respondent
The State Of Jharkhand
Judgment text (excerpt)
Ajit Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 October, 2026
2026 INSC 1084 REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 4573 OF 2026
AJIT KUMAR …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF JHARKHAND ....RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
UJJAL BHUYAN, J.
This appeal takes exception to the judgment and
order dated 21.07.2022 passed by the High Court of
Jharkhand at Ranchi (briefly ‘the High Court’ hereinafter) in
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 135 of 2021 (Ajit Kumar Vs. State
of Jharkhand) affirming the conviction and sentence imposed
Signature Not Verified on the appellant by the Court of Special Judge, Anti-
Digitally signed by
IRAMNAZ
Corruption Bureau, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa (briefly ‘the
Date: 2026.10.05
16:56:54 IST
Reason:
Special Judge’ hereinafter) in Vigilance Case No. 17 of 2010
vide the judgment and order dated 27.02.2021.
2. Be it stated that by the aforesaid judgment and
order dated 27.02.2021, learned Special Judge had convicted
the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the PC Act’ hereinafter) and
sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for four
years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000.00 with a default
stipulation for each of the two offences, both the sentences to
run concurrently.
3. On 24.07.2026, when this Court had issued notice,
learned counsel for the appellant had submitted that though
the appellant had undergone the sentence of imprisonment
and paid the fine, yet he would like to pursue the related
special leave petition to get his name cleared. On 23.09.2026,
leave was granted and the appeal was heard whereafter the
judgment was reserved.
4. At the outset, it would be appropriate to narrate
the prosecution case.
2
4.1. Prosecu…

Source: Indian Kanoon (indiankanoon.org). Indian court judgments are public records; the summary and translations are AI-generated.