Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 34729 (JHR)

MUKUL JHA v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Cr.A(DB)/763/2025 · 2025-08-05

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, Rongon Mukhopadhyay

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:JHHC:21789-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 763 of 2025 Mukul Jha, aged about 43 years, son of Baldeo Jha, resident of Village Budhai, PO & PS Budhai, District Deoghar, Jharkhand. ---- --- Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand …. --- Respondent --- CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava --- For the Appellant: Mr. A.K. Choudhary, Advocate For the State: Mrs. Nahala Sharmin, Spl. P.P. --- I.A. No. 7890 of 2025 02 / 05.08.2025 Heard Mr. A.K. Choudhary, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Nahala Sharmin, learned Spl. P.P. 2. This application has been preferred by the appellant for condoning the delay of 07 days in filing the appeal. 3. Having been satisfied with the reasons assigned in the instant application, the same is allowed and the delay of 07 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. The aforesaid I.A. stands disposed of. Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 763 of 2025 5. This appeal is directed against the order dated 03.03.2025 passed in Cri. Misc. Application No.28 of 2025 arising out of Budhai P.S. Case No. 25 of 2022 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Madhupur whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected. 6. It has been alleged that the appellant had thrown a bomb on the head of his wife which resulted in her death. 7. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has falsely been implicated. 8. Regard being had to the nature of allegation against the appellant, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order dated 03.03.2025 passed in Cri. 2 Misc. Application No.28 of 2025 arising out of Budhai P.S. Case No. 25 of 2022 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1-, Madhupur. Hence the prayer for bail of the appellant is hereby rejected. 9. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J) R.K.M.