Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 19665 (JHR)

SULENDER ORAON @ SULENDAR ORAON v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

A.B.A./3715/2026 · 2026-07-09

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:20319 --1-- A.B.A. No. 3715 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3715 of 2026 ---- Sulender Oraon @ Sulendar Oraon, aged about 31 years, son of Manohar Oraon, resident of village – Khora, Bhakwatoli, PO and PS – Palkot, District – Gumla, State – Jharkhand .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, Advocate ---- 02/09.07.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Gumla P.S. Case No.110 of 2025 for the alleged offences registered under Sections 308(4), 3(5), 308(3) and 109 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ad Section 27(1) of Arms Act pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the allegation of firing is made against Arjun Gope. He further submits that even the allegation of extortion is false against the petitioner. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer 2026:JHHC:20319 --2-- A.B.A. No. 3715 of 2026 and submits that petitioner is not cooperating in the investigation and in paragraph No.35 of the case diary the call details of members from which the levy was demanded has come. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 5. In the FIR the petitioner is named and the allegation of firing is also there and the petitioner is said to be accomplice of Arjun Gope and in paragraph No.35 of the case diary it has come that levy was demanded by several persons. 6. In the attending facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 09.07.2026 Sangam/