Himal Bauri Vs the State of Jharkhand

2026:JHHC:4836

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.9876 of 2025

….

Himal Bauri, aged about 32 years, son of Late Fuchu Bauri, resident of Joradih, P.O. and P.S. Nirsa, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand ……Petitioner

¶5

Versus The State of Jharkhand ……Opp. Party

¶6

-----

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

¶8

----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P

¶9

Order No.03/16^th February 2026

¶10

The present Bail Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for grant of regular bail, who is in custody since 06.05.2025 in connection with Nirsa P.S. Case No.229/2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 109 of BNS and 27 of Arms Act.

¶11

As per the F.I.R. that informant Ravi Bauri submitted a written application before the police, alleged therein that on 15.07.2024 at about 02:00 PM, his son Jai Prakash Bauri had gone for fishing at Kanu Talab and then Himal Bauri (i.e. the petitioner) shot fired from his pistol and his son was injured on the right side of the stomach.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence. It is submitted that the informant has implicated the petitioner only due to suspicion and surmise and the entire story with regard to dissatisfaction of the petitioner with the love affairs of his sister is also false and concocted. It is submitted that anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen) of this Court vide order dated 23.04.2025 in A.B.A. No.2480 of 2025. The petitioner is in

¶13

¶14

2026:JHHC:4836

¶15

custody since 06.05.2025 and hence he may be enlarged on bail.

¶16

On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer of bail of the petitioner. It is submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner for firing two bullets upon the informant. It is further submitted that the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen) of this Court vide order dated 23.04.2025 in A.B.A. No.2480 of 2025.

¶17

Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and from perusal of the records of this case, it appears that there is direct allegation of firing of two bullets upon the son of the Informant by the petitioner.

¶18

It appears that the injuries found upon the injured persons are grievous in nature.

¶19

It also appears from the paragraph 54 of the case diary that the mobile location of the petitioner was also found nearby the place of occurrence.

¶20

Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to grant the bail to the petitioner.

¶21

Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

¶22

Thus, the Bail Application No.9876 of 2025 is dismissed. 10. However, the learned Trial Court is directed to conclude the Trial expeditiously within a period of nine (09) months from the date of receipt a copy of this order.

¶23

Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court.

¶24

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

¶25

Dated :- 16.02.2026 Nishant/-

¶26

Himal Bauri v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Himal Bauri 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

Debesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abhishek Anand Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mantu Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kamal Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sumit Kumar Alias Sumit Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dablu Bhuiyan Vs State of Jharkhand