Vikash Ram Alias Vikash Kumar Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Vikash Ram Alias Vikash Kumar Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner, who is apprehending arrest in Keredari PS Case No.118 of 2021 for offences under section 147, 148, 149, 302, 34 IPC, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of the CLA Act, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hazaribagh.

Court's answer

In the attending facts and circumstances — including the confession of co-accused Dinesh Kumar Ganjhu in paragraph no.43 of the case diary that the petitioner was also a member of the TPC organization and that his involvement was there, with the firing having resulted in the death of the informant's brother — the court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected and A.B.A. No. 1729 of 2026 was dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ANTICIPATORY BAIL — REJECTED. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.), 16.06.2026; A.B.A. No. 1729 of 2026; neutral citation 2026:JHHC:17436. Petitioner Vikash Ram @ Vikash Kumra Ram, apprehending arrest in Keredari PS Case No.118 of 2021 (section 147, 148, 149, 302, 34 IPC; Section 27 of the Arms Act; Section 17 of the CLA Act), pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hazaribagh, sought anticipatory bail. Counsel for the petitioner urged that he was not named in the FIR, his name surfaced during investigation, and it was unclear by whom the fatal firing was made. State counsel opposed, placing reliance on the case diary: the informant supported the case in its restatement (paragraph no.3); 9 mm and 3 mm live cartridges and one android phone were recovered (paragraph no.7); and in paragraph no.43 co-accused Dinesh Kumar Ganjhu named the petitioner as a member of the TPC organization, with criminal antecedent also alleged. Held: in the attending facts and circumstances — Ganjhu's confession that the petitioner was also a member of the TPC organization and was involved, and the firing having resulted in the death of the informant's brother — the court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail; the prayer was rejected and the application dismissed.

2026:JHHC:17436

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

----

A.B.A. No. 1729 of 2026

----

Vikash Ram @ Vikash Kumra Ram, aged about 30 years, son of Suresh Ram, resident of Village Murupiri, Dwapar Tola, PO Burmu, PS Burmu, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.... Petitioner

-- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Awnish Shankar, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, Advocate ----

/16.06.2026 Heard learned counsels for petitioner and for State.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection

with Keredari PS Case No.118 of 2021, for offence registered under section 147, 148, 149, 302, 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of the CLA Act, pending in court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hazaribagh.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and later on, during the investigation, the name of the petitioner has surfaced. He next submits that the allegations of firing is there pursuant to which brother of the informant has died and by whom the firing is made is not clear and on these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted.

Learned State counsel opposes prayer and submits that the petitioner is accomplice of the person who has assaulted and the

-1- A.B.A. No. 1729 of 2026

2026:JHHC:17436

petitioner happened to be member of Naxal party. He next submits that in paragraph no.3 of the case diary, in the restatement, the informant has supported the case and in paragraph no.7 of the case diary, it has come that 9 mm and 3 mm live cartridge and one android phone were recovered and he also submits that in paragraph no.43 of the case diary, co-accused Dinesh Kumar Ganjhu has taken name of the petitioner and it is disclosed that he is the member of TPC organization. He also submits that the petitioner has got criminal antecedent and on these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected.

In paragraph no.43 of the case diary, Dinesh Kumar Ganjhu has confessed that this petitioner was also the member of TPC organization and his involvement is also there and pursuant to the firing, the brother of the informant has died, and in the attending facts and circumstances of the instant case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, and as such, his prayer for bail is hereby rejected and consequently, the present anticipatory bail application being A.B.A.No.1729 of 2026 is, hereby, dismissed.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

16.06.2026 SI/

-2- A.B.A. No. 1729 of 2026