Virendra Kumar Ray @ Virendra Kumar Rai vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 778 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Virendra Kumar Ray @ Virendra Kumar Rai vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 5 February, 2026

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

                                                                             ( 2026:JHHC:2996 )




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                    A.B.A. No. 620 of 2026
              Virendra Kumar Ray @ Virendra Kumar Rai, aged about 48 years, S/o
              Janardan Rai, R/o Village Singhari, P.O. Bajitpur, P.S. Meharma, Dist.- Godda,
              Jharkhand                                                 ... Petitioner
                                           -Versus-
              The State of Jharkhand                                    ... Opposite Party
                                                -----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

-----

               For the Petitioner         : Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad, Advocate
               For the State              : Mr. V.S. Sahay, A.P.P.
                                                -----
05/05.02.2026          Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel
              appearing for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Meharma P.S. Case No.250/2013, corresponding to G.R. Case No.1976/2013, registered for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC and Section 25(1-b) A, 26 of Arms Act, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Godda.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has earlier moved before this Court in A.B.A. No.682 of 2014, which was dismissed vide order dated 22.12.2014. He next submits that now this anticipatory bail application may kindly be allowed.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits that earlier anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner was rejected on merit and there is no fresh ground to entertain this anticipatory bail application.

5. Vide order dated 22.12.2014, earlier anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner being A.B.A. No.682 of 2014 has been rejected on merit. There is no fresh ground to entertain this anticipatory bail application and, as such, this anticipatory bail application is dismissed.

6. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner moves before the learned Court by way of filing regular bail petition, that will be decided in accordance with law without being prejudiced to this order.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated: 5th February, 2026 Ajay/