Gobind Hembrom @ Govind Hembrom vs The State Of Jharkhand ..... Opp. Party
2026 Latest Caselaw 1306 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Gobind Hembrom @ Govind Hembrom vs The State Of Jharkhand ..... Opp. Party on 18 February, 2026

Author: Rajesh Kumar

Bench: Rajesh Kumar

                                                        2026:JHHC:4637

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    B.A No.11019 of 2025

       Gobind Hembrom @ Govind Hembrom, aged about 35
       years, S/o - Late Mistri Hembrom, R/o Village -
       Dhandhakiya, P.O + P.S - Muffasil, District - Dumka.
                                            ......       Petitioner
                           Versus
       The State of Jharkhand                        .....       Opp. Party
                                 ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, A.P.P

---------

                  th
04/Dated: 18           February, 2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The applicant, who is in custody since 29.05.2025, has approached this Court for grant of regular bail in connection with Dumka (M) P.S. Case No.78 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 333/ 109/ 103(1)/ 3(5) of BNS, 2023, pending in the court of learned C.J.M., Dumka.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that complete set of F.I.R along with its enclosures have been annexed with the present bail application and there is no suppression on his/ her part.

Innocence of the applicant has been claimed and undertaking has been given for participation in the trial. It has been submitted that the fatal assault has been inflicted by the other co-accused and not by this applicant. There is case and counter case. It has further been submitted that charge has already been framed on 11.11.2025. On the above basis, prayer for bail has been made.

4. Learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer for bail stating that the crime has been done by the active participation of this applicant also. Thus, the individual accusation is not relevant.

5. Considering the above fact, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail, at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the applicant is, hereby, rejected.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) 18th February, 2026 Ravi-Chandan/-

Uploaded on 19.02.2026