Jagan Lohra Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Jagan Lohra Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner enlarged on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Latehar, subject to the conditions of trial co-operation, furnishing mobile number and Aadhar Card photocopy with an undertaking not to change the mobile number, and not annoying or disturbing the informant or witnesses during the trial.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner should be enlarged on bail in connection with Chhipadohar P.S. Case No.14 of 2020 corresponding to S.T. Case No.157 of 2022.

Ratio / Principle

Considering the submissions of the counsels and the facts discussed, the Court was inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and directed his release on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Latehar, in connection with Chhipadohar P.S. Case No.14 of 2020 corresponding to S.T. Case No.157 of 2022.

Key takeaways

Bail was granted 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.ratio¶16
The petitioner was required to give an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the trial of the case.ratio¶16
Bail was further conditioned on the petitioner not annoying or disturbing the informant or the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted - Jagan Lohra, aged about 24 years of District-Lohardaga, in custody since 13.07.2025, moved the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (B.A. No.35 of 2026) for bail in Chhipadohar P.S. Case No.14 of 2020 corresponding to S.T. Case No.157 of 2022, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 353, 387 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of Arms Act and Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act; counsel alleged he was a member of the banned CPI Maoists organization with an exchange of fire in which no one sustained injuries, that no witness had been examined, that co-accused had been bailed by a co-ordinate bench vide order dated 06.10.2025 in B.A. No.9076 of 2025, and that he had no criminal antecedents. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary (Order No.04 dated 23-04-2026) enlarged the petitioner on bail on a bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Latehar, conditioned on co-operation with the trial, furnishing his mobile number and Aadhar Card photocopy with an undertaking not to change the mobile number, and not annoying or disturbing the informant or the witnesses during the trial.

( 2026:JHHC:11974 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.35 of 2026

------

Jagan Lohra, aged about 24 years, son of Chulwa Lohra, Resident of Village-Rudkaranj Toli, P.O. & P.S.-Pesrar, District-Lohardaga.

.... .... …. Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party

------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

For the Petitioner : Mr. Agnivesh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, Addl.P.P ------

Order No.04 Dated- 23-04-2026

Heard the parties.

The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Chhipadohar P.S. Case No.14 of 2020 corresponding to S.T. Case No.157 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 353, 387 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 27 of Arms Act and Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner as a member of banned militant group namely CPI Maoists organization and there was exchange of fire with the raiding police team, but no one sustained injuries in the said occurrence. It is next submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is then submitted that the exchange of fire continued for half an hour. It is also submitted that no witness has been examined in this case. 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 informant/victim or the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. It is next submitted that the co-accused persons have been granted bail by the co-ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 06.10.2025 in B.A. No.9076 of 2025. It is then submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents as has been mentioned in para-14 of this bail application. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 13.07.2025 as is evident

from para-10 of this bail application. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.

The learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for bail.

Considering the submissions of the counsels 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 Additional Sessions Judge-III, Latehar in connection with Chhipadohar P.S. Case No.14 of 2020 corresponding to S.T. Case No.157 of 2022 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 informant or the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case .

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

23/04/2026 Abhiraj/