Jharkhand High Court
A.B.A./5486/2026 of GUNAMUNI PAL Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 30 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.5486 of 2026 ------ Gunamuni Pal aged about 45 years, W/o – Dhiren Pal, R/o Village – Asanbani, P.O. – Asanbani, P.S. – Ranishwar, District – Dumka, Jharkhand. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand
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:29436] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.5486 of 2026
------ Gunamuni Pal aged about 45 years, W/o – Dhiren Pal, R/o Village – Asanbani, P.O. – Asanbani, P.S. – Ranishwar, District – Dumka, Jharkhand. .... .... …. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
.... .... .... Opposite Party
------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For the State
: Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
------ Order No:-02 Dated:-30-09-2026
Heard the parties.
Apprehending her arrest in connection with Raneshwar P.S. Case No.60 of 2023 registered under Sections 323, 406, 420, 120B/34 of Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and her name has appeared in Rina Murmu’s reply to the notice under Section 41A. It is then submitted that the copy of the reply to the said notice under Section 41A, though it has not been mentioned in the anticipatory bail application, appears to be of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is not in the record. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.
In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered view that the materials in the record is insufficient to suggest that there is any apprehension of the petitioner of being arrested in connection with any non-bailable offence and in the absence of the same, this Court is not inclined to give the privileges of anticipatory bail to the above-named petitioner.
Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the above- named petitioner is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated:-30.09.2026 Saroj/