Allowed

Rajesh Ganjhu v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC15 Sept 2026B.A./8557/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Jharkhand High Court granted bail to two petitioners accused in an attempt to murder case under BNS 2023 and Arms Act, noting they were not named in the FIR and three witnesses including the alleged victims did not implicate them. They had been in custody since July 18, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to both petitioners on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000 each with two sureties of like amount, subject to conditions including cooperation with trial, furnishing mobile numbers and Aadhaar card copies, and undertakings not to change mobile numbers or disturb witnesses during trial.

Rajesh Ganjhu Vs State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:JHHC:27787] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.8557 of 2026

¶2

¶3

1. Rajesh Ganjhu, Aged about 21 years, Son of Late Devki Ganjhu, Resident of Village – Manatu, P.O.+P.S.- Keredari, District – Hazaribagh. 2. Fulendra Ganjhu, aged about 20 years, Son of Bechan Ganjhu, Resident Masuriya, P.O. of Village-and P.S.- Keredari, District- Hazaribagh.

¶4

…. …. Petitioners

¶5

Versus ----

¶6

The State of Jharkhand …. …. Opposite Party

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶8

---For the Petitioners : Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Azeemuddin, Addl. P.P. ----

¶9

02/Dated: 15^th September, 2026

¶10

Heard the parties.

¶11

The petitioners have been made accused in connection with Barkagaon P.S. Case No.169 of 2025, corresponding to G.R. No.2099 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 118(2), 109(1), 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Sections 27 of the Arms Act.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons has attempted to commit murder of Kuleshwar Bediya and Baiju Bediya by firing upon them. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. They are not named in the FIR. So far three witnesses including the alleged victim have been examined but they have not uttered anything to implicate the petitioners in this case. It is next submitted that the petitioners have been in custody since 18.07.2025 as mentioned in para-16 of the instant bail application. It is lastly submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to co-operate with the trial of the case and also undertakes not to annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be released on bail.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioners.

¶14

Considering the facts of this case, the above-named petitioners are directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/(Rupees twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned J.M. 1^st Class, Hazaribagh in connection with Barkagaon P.S. Case No.169 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. No.2099 of 2025 with the condition that they will co-operate with the trial of the case and furnish their mobile numbers and photocopy of the Aadhar Cards in the court below with an undertaking that they will not change their mobile numbers during the trial of the case and they will not annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case.

¶15

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶16

Dated: 15^th September, 2026 Amar/Uploaded

Rajesh Ganjhu v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Ganjhu v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases