Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 24917 (JHR)

FIRU BHAGAT v. STATE OF JHARKHAND

A.B.A./4177/2026 · 2026-09-02

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:JHHC:26523] -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 4177 of 2026 1. Firu Bhagat aged 40 years S/o Chhapan Bhagat, village Dumardih, P.S &P.O. Gumla, Dist. Gumla. 2. Dharti Oraon @ Sandeep Tirkey aged 32 years S/o Jamla Tirkey, village Armai, P.S &P.O. Gumla Dist. Gumla. 3. Aanand Oraon aged 27 years S/o Late Majhiya Oraon, village Armai, Nevatoli, P.S &P.O. Gumla Dist. Gumla. 4. Chhapan Bhagat aged 68 years S/o Late Litiya Bhagat, village Armai P.S &P.O. Gumla Dist. Gumla. 5. Jagna Oraon aged 52 years S/o Late Mangra Oraon village Armai, Nevatoli P.S &P.O. Gumla Dist. Gumla. 6. Surendra Lakra, aged 39 years S/o Somra Lakra, village Armai Nevatoli P.S &P.O. Gumla Dist. Gumla. 7. Sudarshan Bhagat aged 36 years, S/o Kolhai Bhagat, vill. Dumardih, P.S &P.O. Gumla Dist. Gumla. 8. Tijo Oraon @ Tijmani Oraon aged 45 years S/o Surendra Lakra, village Armai, Nevatoli, P.S &P.O. Gumla Dist. Gumla. 9. Mina Oraon aged 34 years, W/o Late Ropa Oraon village Dumardih, P.S &P.O. Gumla Dist. Gumla. 10. Gokul Oraon aged 23 years S/o Late Turi Oraon, village Armai Nevatoli, P.S &P.O. Gumla Dist. Gumla. ..... … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... … Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Mohit Prakash, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Pratik Sen, Advocate. ------ 07/ 02.09.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.P.P for the State and learned counsel appearing for the informant. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection [2026:JHHC:26523] -2- with Gumla P.S. Case No. 92 of 2026, registered for the offence under Sections 191(2), 190, 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 351(3), 308(2), 308(3), 308(5), 303(2), 324(4), 324(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that false allegations are made against the petitioners of demanding extortion for the land in question. He next submits that the informant side is also having the criminal antecedent and for the same occurrence, the petitioners’ side have also filed a case against the informant side. He further submits that there are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be provided to the petitioners. 4. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the informant have jointly opposed the prayer and submit that serious allegations are there against these petitioners and further these petitioners are named in the FIR. Learned A.P.P. further submits that the land is of the informant and that has come in the report of the concerned Circle Officer and the same has been recorded in para-24 of the case diary. He also submits that petitioner No. 1 is having four criminal antecedents, petitioner No. 5 and petitioner No. 7 are also having two criminal antecedents each. On these grounds, they submit that anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 5. In the FIR, it has been alleged that the informant’s husband is the owner of Plot Nos. 1125 and 1126 in Khata No. 117 measuring an area of 4.47 acres and this fact has also been supported from para-24 the case diary, wherein the disclosure has been made about the report of the concerned circle officer. Further the allegations are made that when the informant has gone to erect the boundary wall, the accused [2026:JHHC:26523] -3- persons demanded Rs. 50 lakhs as extortion for starting the construction of boundary wall and further allegations are there of taking Rs. 2 lakhs and the petitioner Nos. 1, 5 and 7 are having the criminal antecedents and rest of the petitioners are also the accomplice and all are named in the FIR. 6. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, above named. Accordingly, their prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated:-02.09.2026 Amitesh/-