CHHOTU KUJUR ALIAS ASHISH KUJUR v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
B.A./4157/2025 · 2025-08-01
Ambuj Nath
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 12983 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 12983 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:JHHC:21480 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 4157 of 2025
-------
Chhotu Kujur @ Ashish Kujur, aged about 39 years, son of Late Bandhan Kujur, resident of village Devi Mandap, Jatra Maidan Gali, Hesal, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar, District Ranchi.
…... …. Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
.…. …. Opp. Party
--------
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
-------- For the Petitioner(s)
: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State
: Mr. V. S. Sahay, A.P. P. For the Informant
: Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate
--------
03/ Dated 01.08.2025
Heard the parties.
The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No. 238 of 2022, S.T. Case No.731 of 2023, for the offences registered under Sections 302, 120B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-b)a, 26, 27, 35 of the Arms Act, pending in the court of Sri Anand Prakash, learned A.J.C.- III, Ranchi.
Bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected by this Court in B.A. No.6459/2024, by order dated 27.11.2024.
It is alleged that co-accused Rahul Kujur alongwith other accused persons had fired on the father of the informant Kamal Bhushan due to which he succumbed to his injuries. It was submitted that though petitioner is named in the FIR, but there is no specific allegation against him. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that petitioner had subsequently threatened one witness of the case, namely Jagdish Prasad not to depose against him and other co-accused persons, for which, another police case was registered.
Learned counsel for the informant further submitted that petitioner is an accused of more than five cases of very heinous in nature. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that witness against whom there is allegation to have threatened him, he was not initially chargesheeted.
Considering the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to release the petitioner, on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected.
Learned Trial Court shall expedite the trial.
(Ambuj Nath, J.) BS/-