2026:JHHC:7680 1 | P a g e IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.11530 of 2025 Sanjiv Kumar Upadhyay @ Golu @ Sanjeev Upadhyay, aged about 30 years, S/o. Late Sushil Upadhyay, R/o. Jagarnath Vihar, New Pundag, near Sail City, Jagarnathpur, P.O. & P.S.- Pundag, Dist.- Ranchi, Jharkhand. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava For the Petitioner : Mr. Rishu Ranjan, Adv. For the State : Mr. Someshwar Roy, A.P.P. Order No.05/Dated- 19.03.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. 2. The petitioner has been made an accused in connection with Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 371 of 2025, registered for offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 118(2), 303(2), 308(4), 49, 351(2), 351(3) & 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023, which is pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and there is no specific allegation of assault by knife to the son of the informant rather name of the petitioner has come only on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Golu Yadav. It is further submitted that assault was given by co-accused Golu Yadav with a knife was also recovered from the possession of co-accused Golu Yadav. Therefore, the involvement in the alleged occurrence has been shown anonymous against this petitioner. It is also submitted that charge has been framed in this case and the petitioner is in judicial custody since 23.09.2025. Petitioner undertakes to 2026:JHHC:7680 2 | P a g e cooperate in the trial of the case and abides by all terms and conditions which may be imposed. Hence, the petitioner may be admitted to bail. 4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and has submitted that there is specific statement of injured at para-10 of the case diary stating therein that present petitioner and co-accused have given knife blow on his stomach causing grievous injury and they have also snatched golden chain of the injured. The genesis of occurrence is demand of extortion money from the son of the informant. It is the petitioner himself who had called the injured through telephonic call from his house and thereafter occurrence took place. Therefore, the petitioner does not deserve bail. 5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the fact that injury in stomach, which is the vital part of the body, was found to be grievous in nature, I do not find substance in the contentions raised on behalf of petitioner. Therefore, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) 19.03.2026 Rahul Uploaded on 20.03.2026