Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 16136 (JHR)

RAJEEV KUMAR v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

A.B.A./3255/2025 · 2025-06-13

Sri Ananda Sen

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:JHHC:15367 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.3255 of 2025 ------ Rajeev Kumar, son of Shyam Bihari Yadav, resident of Amrawati Colony, Chutia, PO and PS Chutia, District Ranchi, Jharkhand … … Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Jharkhand. … … Opposite Party(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P. ----- 02/ 13.06.2025 Heard the parties. 2. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest for offences registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 109, 303(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pending in the court of J.M., Ranchi in connection with Argora PS Case No. 71 of 2025. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner defaulted in paying one instalment of the loan amount, a false case has been lodged against the petitioner. The petitioner later on deposited the amount also. He lastly submits that the nature of injury has not been mentioned as the doctor could not opined as to whether the injury is grievous or simple. 4. After hearing the parties and going through the FIR, I find that the allegation against the petitioner is that he went to the office of the informant and thereafter assault had taken place. Informant was assaulted by weapon. From the impugned order, I find that Nitish Kumar sustained fracture injury in his metacarpal bone of right hand as also injury on head near parieto occipital region. 2025:JHHC:15367 2 5. Learned A.P.P. representing the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. 6. Considering the fact that there is an allegation of assault by this petitioner and there is injury, this Court finds it not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail Application stands dismissed. 8. If the petitioner appears before the court concerned his case will be considered without being prejudiced by the order of this Court. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Tanuj/Cp-3