Tunu Lohar @ Tuun Lohar Vs the State of Jharkhand

2026:JHHC:6972

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

B.A. No.12020 of 2025

Tunu Lohar @ Tuun Lohar, aged about 32 years, son of Guru Lohar, Resident of Rammadaiya Bastee, Post Adityapur, Police Station Adityapur, District Seraikella Kharsawan.

¶5

… Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

¶8

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶9

For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, A.P.P.

¶10

Order No.03/Dated- 16.03.2026

¶11

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

2. The petitioner has been made an accused in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No.289 of 2025 registered for offences punishable under Sections 25(1-B)(a)/35 of the Arms Act and Section 310(4) of the B.N.S., 2023, which is pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella.

¶13

3. It is alleged that petitioner along with co-accused person were wandering near Railway Bridge and there was recovery of illegal country made pistol from the possession of the petitioner and they were planning to commit a big offence and collect a lot of money.

¶14

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that there is simple recovery of one country made pistol without any cartridge. As per F.I.R., the allegation against the petitioner and other named accused persons is that they were making plan and preparation for committing dacoity or any other serious offence. It is further submitted that petitioner is judicial custody since 19.09.2025. Charge-sheet has already been submitted. There is no likelihood of tampering of any prosecution evidence. Petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the trial of the case and abide by all terms and conditions which may be imposed. Hence, the petitioner may be admitted to bail.

¶15

5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner and has submitted

¶16

2026:JHHC:6972

¶17

that petitioner has 8 criminal antecedents since 2009 and has been continuously involved in commission of similar type of offence. Therefore, petitioner does not deserve bail.

¶18

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials collected against the petitioner, it appears that simply a country made pistol has been found and no other incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Petitioner has already remained in custody for 6 months. Therefore, I feel inclined to admit the petitioner on bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is allowed on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No.289 of 2025 subject to the conditions:-

¶19

(1) Petitioner shall remain physically present on each and every date till the conclusion of the trial of this case unless prevented from sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.

¶20

(2) Petitioner shall not indulge in any or other similar offence till the conclusion of the trial.

¶21

(3) Petitioner shall not indulge in tampering with the prosecution evidences or influencing the prosecution witnesses.

¶22

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶23

Dated: 16^th March, 2026 Sachin/ Uploaded on: 17/03/2026

Tunu Lohar @ Tuun Lohar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tunu Lohar @ Tuun Lohar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baleshwar Kumar Alias Baleshwar Alias Satya Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kameshwar Baitha Vs State of Jharkhand

Nirmal Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Noorjahan Begam Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rohan Kumar Alias Piyush Kumar Alias Rohan Rajak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pankaj Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand