Jharkhand High Court
B.A./8510/2026 of GOMEYA HORO @ GOMIYA HORO Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 6 October 2026
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8510 of 2026 Gomeya Horo @ Gomiya Horo, aged about 51 years, S/o Kanu Horo, Resident of Village – Gulikera, Raida, P.O. & P.S. – Gudri, District – West Singhbhum (Jharkhand) … … Petitioner Versus The State of
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
2026:JHHC:29916
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 8510 of 2026
Gomeya Horo @ Gomiya Horo, aged about 51 years, S/o Kanu Horo, Resident of Village – Gulikera, Raida, P.O. & P.S. – Gudri, District – West Singhbhum (Jharkhand)
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, APP
---
04/06.10.2026
Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody 09.11.2025 in connection with S.T. Case No.52 of 2026, arising out of Gudri P.S. Case No.04 of 2025, registered under Section 103 (1) of the BNS, 2023, now pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge – I, Sub-Divisional Court, Chakradharpur (Chaibasa).
3. Counter affidavit filed during the court proceedings is taken on record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 09.11.2025 and charge has been framed on 23.03.2026 and there are 7 charge sheet witnesses, but no witness has been examined so far as is reflecting from the impugned order dated 22.06.2026. The next date fixed in the case is 14.10.2026.
5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner and there is eye witness to the alleged occurrence. He has referred to paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit and paragraph 32 of the case diary, which is the statement of the daughter of the deceased.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the direct allegations against the petitioner, as well as the materials collected during investigation including the statement of the eyewitness to the alleged occurrence, this Court is not inclined to 2026:JHHC:29916
enlarge the petitioner on bail.
7. However, the State is directed to ensure that the witnesses are promptly produced before the court.
8. The learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district and also to Director, Prosecution to ensure compliance.
9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:06.10.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:08.10.2026