Jharkhand High Court
B.A./9038/2026 of RAJU KUMHAR @ TAKLA Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 29 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.9038 of 2026 ------ Raju Kumhar @ Takla aged about 24 years Son of Gokul Kumhar, Resident of Saldih Basti G Road (Tenant of Ravi Nayak) P.O. & P.S.- Adityapur, District- Seraikella Kharsawa Permanent Resident of Sirum P.S. Nimdih, P.O. Nimdih District-
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:29239] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No.9038 of 2026
------ Raju Kumhar @ Takla aged about 24 years Son of Gokul Kumhar, Resident of Saldih Basti G Road (Tenant of Ravi Nayak) P.O. & P.S.- Adityapur, District- Seraikella Kharsawa Permanent Resident of Sirum P.S. Nimdih, P.O. Nimdih District- Seraikella Kharsawan.
.... .... …. Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand
.... .... .... Opposite Party
------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. J. N. Upadhyay, Advocate For the State
: Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey, Addl.P.P.
------ Order No:-02 Dated:-29-09-2026
Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with S.T. Case No.113 of 2026 arising out of Adityapur P.S. Case No. 95 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 109 & 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 27 of Arms Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner fired upon the house of the informant. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is then submitted that there is no allegation of anyone sustaining any injury in connection with this case. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 10.04.2026 as mentioned in para-11 of the instant bail application. It is then submitted that charge sheet has been submitted in this case, but no witness has been examined as yet. It is also submitted that the co- accused, with similar allegations, has already been admitted to bail by this Court vide order dated 24.09.2026 passed in B.A. No.8937 of 2026. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the trial of the case and also undertakes not to annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail.
Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Considering the facts of this case, the above-named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella in connection with S.T. Case No.113 of 2026 arising out of Adityapur P.S. Case No. 95 of 2026 with the condition that he will co-operate with the trial of the case and furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card in the court below with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the trial of the case and he will not annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated:- 29.09.2026 Amar/