Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 7543 (JHR)

GOPE BHENGRA @ GOPE MUNDA ALLIAS MUNDA v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

A.B.A./7129/2025 · 2026-04-29

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

( 2026:JHHC:12531 ) -1- A.B.A. No. 7129 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 7129 of 2025 Gope Bhengra @ Gope Munda @ Munda, age about 43 years, S/o Bishun Bhangra (Munda), R/o Dufu, P.O. Birda, P.S. Karra, Dist.- Khunti … Petitioner -Versus- The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioner : Ms. Neha Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mr. V.S. Sahay, A.P.P. ----- 03/29.04.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Karra P.S. Case No.83 of 2025, registered for the offence under Section 118/109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Khunti. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. She further submits that the allegations are made of assault by way of axe and that has not come in the case diary. She then submits that the altercation took place due to land dispute. She next submits that the witnesses have informed the informant that both the parties were fighting amongst each other. On these grounds, she submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits that there is direct allegation of assault against the petitioner and pursuant to that grievous injury has been received by the father-in-law of the informant. 5. Looking into the contents of the FIR, it transpires that there is direct allegation of assault against the petitioner and that has been supported by ( 2026:JHHC:12531 ) -2- A.B.A. No. 7129 of 2025 the witnesses in paras 4, 9 and 10 of the case diary. The injury is said to be grievous in nature. 6. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and, as such, his prayer for anticipatory bail is, hereby, rejected. 7. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated: 29th April, 2026 Ajay/