Jharkhand High Court
Cr.A(DB)/1249/2026 of BHUKHLI DEVI ALIAS BHUKHLI ORAIN ALIAS BHUKHLI LAKRA Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 5 November 2026
Citation 2026:JHHC:32625-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1249 of 2026 Bhukhli Devi @ Bhukhli Orain @ Bhukhli Lakra, R/o Vill- Khora Jam toli, P.O.- Sivil, P.S.- Gumla, Dist.- Gumla. --- --- Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent --- CORAM:
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.
Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:32625-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1249 of 2026
Bhukhli Devi @ Bhukhli Orain @ Bhukhli Lakra, R/o Vill- Khora Jam toli, P.O.- Sivil, P.S.- Gumla, Dist.- Gumla.
--- --- Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand
--- --- Respondent --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM SHARMA --- For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, Adv. For the State
: A.P.P.
---
03/05.11.2026 Heard Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.07.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum Special Judge, Gumla in B.P. No. 355/2026 in connection with AHTU (Gumla) P.S. Case No. 03/2020, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected.
It has been alleged that the appellant had taken the daughter of the informant to help her in religious ceremonies and kept her for 15 days. When the informant went to bring her daughter back, the appellant had assaulted her and had told her that she will send her daughter soon. On 05.09.2018, the informant had once again gone to the house of the appellant where she was threatened by the appellant and the informant did not find her daughter resulting in institution of the case.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is aged 73 years and is in custody since 06.06.2026. It has further been submitted that the independent witnesses, in course of investigation, has categorically stated that the daughter of the informant
Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:32625-DB
had fled away on account of the regular assault committed upon her by the informant.
Learned A. P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.
It appears from the evidence of the independent witnesses recorded at para 57, 58 and 59 of the Case Diary that the informant used to regularly commit assault upon her daughter as a result of which her daughter used to stay with the appellant who is an aged lady and the case has been instituted by the informant upon the appellant on the basis of suspicion. The witnesses Batiya Lakra and Fulmani Tirkey has also stated about the appellant having been implicated on the basis of suspicion.
Regard being had to the statement of the witnesses, the period of custody undergone by the appellant and the fact that the appellant is aged more than 73 years, we while setting aside the order dated 13.07.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum Special Judge, Gumla in B.P. No. 355/2026 in connection with AHTU (Gumla) P.S. Case No. 03/2020, direct that the appellant be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla in connection with AHTU (Gumla) P.S. Case No. 03/2020.
This appeal is allowed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Ram Sharma, J.) Dated-05th November, 2026. Preet/- Uploaded on: 06 /11/2026.