Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 11719 (JHR)

ABHIMANYU KUMAR KESHRI ALIAS ABHIMANYU v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./9906/2025 · 2026-02-18

Gautam Kumar Choudhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:4787 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9906 of 2025 ------ Abhimnyu Kumar Keshri @ Abhimanyu, S/o Dilip Kumar Keshari, R/o- Indira Gandhi Raod, Garhwa, PO + PS-Garhwa, District-Garhwa, Jharkhand .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, APP For the Informant : Mr. Sourav Singh, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kr. Pandey, Advocate ------ Order No.04 / Dated : 18.02.2026. Heard both the sides. This bail application has been filed on behalf of Abhimnyu Kumar Keshri @ Abhimanyu who is in custody since 16.07.2025 in connection with Garhwa Nagar P.S. Case No. 293 of 2025 for the offence registered under Sections 109(1), 126(2), 351(3), 352 and 3(5) of the BNS and Section 27 of Arms Act pending in the Court of CJM, Garhwa is pressed into motion. As per the FIR of injured Navneet Kumar Keshri which was recorded in Sadar Hospital, Garhwa, he was a shopkeeper and on 30.06.2025 three named accused persons came to his shop along with this petitioner and they started abusing him and this petitioner fired on the informant resulting in gunshot injury. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that informant is involved in illegal trafficking of narcotics and it was not the petitioner who caused injury, but injury had been accidently caused by the informant from his own firearm. The Complaint Case No. 943 of 2025 has been filed in this regard on 11.07.2025. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that he is named in the FIR and there is direct and specific allegation against him on firing at the informant and at his instance the weapon of offence was also seized. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for bail of the petitioner, is hereby, rejected. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Pawan/ Uploaded 19.02.2026