Jharkhand High Court
Bablu Gope vs The State Of Jharkhand ..... ... ... on 21 April, 2026
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
( 2026:JHHC:11638 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A. B. A. No. 6187 of 2025
Bablu Gope, aged about 35 years, son of Meghnath Gope, resident of
Balalong, P.O. and P.S. Nagri, District-Ranchi
..... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... ... Opposite Party
With
A. B. A. No. 6435 of 2025
1.Laldev Munda @ Laldeo Munda, aged about 36 years, son of
Mahadev Munda, resident of P.O.-Govindpur, Rehagara, P.S. Torpa,
District-Khunti, Jharkhand
2. Rafique Ansari @ Rafique @ Munna Aged about 40 years, son of
Kurban Ansari, resident of Rehargara, Gobindpur, P.O. Govindpur, P.S.
Torpa, District-Khunti, Jharkhand
..... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... ... Opposite Party
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners :Mr. Suraj Kishore Prasad, Advocate ( In A.B.A. No. 6187/2025) Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate ( In A.B.A. No. 6435 of 2025) For the State : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, A.P.P. ( In A.B.A. No. 6187/2025) Mr. Azeeumuddin, A.P.P (In A.B.A. No. 6435/2025) 02/ 21.04.2026: Both the anticipatory bail applications are arising out of same F.I.R, hence both the anticipatory bail applications are being heard together with the consent of the parties.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
3. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Torpa P.S. Case No. 52 of 2025, registered under sections 140 and 3(5) of BNS, 2023, pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M at Khunti.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and allegation of kidnapping is fasle. He next submits that the petitioners have taken the victim to the police ( 2026:JHHC:11638 ) station and in view of that no case of kidnaping is made out and in view of that petitioners may kindly be provided privilege of anticipatory bail.
5. Learned counsels for the State oppose the prayer and submit that allegations are there of kidnapping and even victim has received injury. They next submit that the victim was taken to the police station by the petitioners which clearly suggests that the victim was kidnapped and thereafter the victim was produced in the police station. He submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected.
6. Looking into contents of F.I.R it transpires that there is direct allegation of kidnapping against the petitioners and they have assaulted the victim in the vehicle who has received injury.
7. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners and accordingly, their prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. Both the anticipatory bail applications are dismissed.
8. If the petitioners file regular bail before the learned court, the same shall be decided in accordance with law without being prejudice to this order.
Dt.21.04.2026 ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) satyarthi-