2026:JHHC:262 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 9186 of 2025 ----- Shailesh Kumar @ Shailesh Kumar Sahu, S/o Late Sitaram Sahu, R/o College Road, P.O. & P.S.-Lohardaga, Dist.-Lohardaga, Jharkhand … …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … …. Opp. Party ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Akhouri Awnish Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P. For the Informant : Ms. Shabina Perween, Advocate ----- Oral Order 06 / Dated : 07.01.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner named above has been made accused in connection with Bharno P.S. Case No. 40 of 2025 (G.R. No. 453 of 2025) for the offence registered under Sections 109, 118(2), 3(5), 61(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27(2) of the Arms Act, pending in the court of A.C.J.M., Gumla. 3. As per the FIR, which has been registered on the basis of fardbeyan of injured Hemant Kumar Sahu on 03.07.2025, this petitioner along with one co-accused came on motorcycle, and fired at him by a pistol from a close range, resulting in gunshot injury over his chest. It is stated that the incident was an outcome of the land dispute between the petitioner and the informant who happens to be his cousin brother. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a doctor by profession and has been falsely implicated in this case due to ongoing land dispute. The firearm allegedly used in the offence has not been recovered from the possession of the petitioner, rather it has been recovered from one co-accused Suraj Kumar. The licensee revolver of the petitioner was sent for ballistic examination in forensic science laboratory and the bullet recovered from the injured did not match with the licensee firearm of the petitioner. 2026:JHHC:262 2 5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the injured sustained three gunshot injuries and there is no reason whatsoever that he will exonerate a person who had fired at him by implicating someone else. 6. Having considered the submissions advanced, it is apparent that the FIR was lodged immediately after the incident and the statement of the injured was taken while he was undergoing treatment in the hospital. The petitioner is named in the FIR and he is the person who had fired at the injured. I do not find that this is a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT/Satendra Uploaded 08.01.2026