Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 7485 (JHR)

NEPALI GANJHU @ NEPALI JEE @ GORAI GANJHU @ UPENDRA GANJHU v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./2502/2026 · 2026-04-29

Anil Kumar Choudhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

( 2026:JHHC:12637 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 2502 of 2026 ------ Nepali Ganjhu @ Nepali Jee @ Gorai Ganjhu @ Upendra Ganjhu, aged about 46 years, S/o Muneshwar Ganjhu, R/o Village –Betu Pathar, P.O. & P.S. –Manatu, District –Palamau, Jharkhand. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Raj Nandan Chatterjee, Advocate : Ms. Juhi Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Praful Jojo, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.04 Dated- 29.04.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Chhatarpur P.S. Case No.160 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under sections 384/385 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25(1-B)(a)/26/35 of the Arms Act and under Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act, 1908. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was involved in extremist activity and was demanding extortion. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the petitioner has been implicated in this case only on the basis of the disclosure made by the co-accused persons namely Govind Yadav, Shivpukar Kumar and Shambhu Parahiya. It is next submitted that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he supplied firearms to the co-accused persons. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 15.06.2024, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 19 of the bail application. It is next submitted that no witness has been examined so far. It is further submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the trial of the case and further undertakes that he will not annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. The learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for bail. Considering the period of custody undergone by the petitioner and the fact as discussed above, I am inclined to enlarge the above-named petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Palamau, in connection with Chhatarpur P.S. Case No.160 of 2023 with the condition that the petitioner will co- operate with the trial of the case and will furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the trial of the case, with further condition that he will not annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 29.04.2026 Sonu/