Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 26416 (JHR)

RAJESH GANJHU v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./8716/2026 · 2026-09-18

Anil Kumar Choudhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:JHHC:28370] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8716 of 2026 1. Rajesh Ganjhu, Aged about 21 years, Son of Late Devki Ganjhu, Resident of Village Manatu, P.O. and P.S. Keredari, District- Hazaribagh. 2. Fulendra Ganjhu, aged about 20 years, Son of Bechan Ganjhu, Resident of Village Masuriya, P.O. and P.S.- Keredari, District- Hazaribagh. … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Manish Kumar , Adv. For the State : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, Addl. PP 02 / 18.09.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioners have been made accused in connection with Mandu P.S. Case No. 164 of 2025, corresponding to GR. No. 736/2025, S.T. No. 133/2026 instituted under Section 25 (1-B)a, 25(1-A), 26(2), of Arms Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners were in illegal possession of the fire arms and from the possession of the petitioner No. 1, one loaded country made pistol and from the petitioner No. 2 one country made pistol and three live cartridges were recovered. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner No. 2 has no criminal antecedent, as mentioned in paragraph 16 of the bail application and charge has already been framed on 03.09.2026. It is next submitted that the petitioners have been in jail custody since 12.07.2025, as mentioned in para 17 of this bail application. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are ready and willing to co-operate with the trial of the case and undertakes not to annoy or disturb the informant or the other witness of the case in any manner during trial of the case, hence, the petitioner may be admitted to bail. Learned Addl. P.P. opposed the prayer for bail. Considering submissions of learned counsels and the facts of this case, I am inclined to release the petitioners on bail. Hence, the court below is directed to release the petitioners on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in connection with Mandu P.S. Case No. 164 of 2025, corresponding to GR. No. 736/2025, S.T. No. 133/2026 with the condition that the petitioners will not annoy or disturb the informant or the other witness of the case in any manner during trial of the case and will co-operate with the trial of the case and will furnish mobile phone number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card in the court below with an undertaking that they will not change the mobile phone number during the trial of the case. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Dated 18.09.2026 Smita/-