Judicial Insight
Back to feed
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…
Read the full judgmentpowered by IKanoon

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