Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 12091 (JHR)

MURSHID ANSARI v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Cr.A(DB)/575/2026 · 2026-05-13

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, Rongon Mukhopadhyay

Criminal Appealbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:14535-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 575 of 2026 Murshid Ansari, S/o Muslim Mian, R/o Village- Singra Basti, P.O. & P.S.- Mahuda, District- Dhanbad, 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. Raj Nandan Chatterjee, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl. P.P. --------- I.A. No. 6185 of 2026 02/13.05.2026 Heard Mr. Raj Nandan Chatterjee, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Spl. P.P. for the State. This interlocutory application has been preferred by the appellant for condoning a delay of 57 days in filing the appeal. Having been satisfied with the reasons assigned in the instant application, the same is allowed and the delay of 57 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. I.A. No. 6185 of 2026 stands disposed of. Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 575 of 2026 This appeal is directed against the order dated 11.11.2025 passed in B.P. Case No. 896 of 2025, arising out of Mahuda P.S. Case No. 69/2025 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XI, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected. It has been alleged that on a secret information a raid was conducted in the house of the appellant and it was detected that several persons were involved in manufacturing of firearms. It appears that country made pistol, pistol barrels, partially finished magazine, live cartridges etc. were recovered. Though, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the house in question was given on rent by the appellant but there is no document in support thereof. It seems that the appellant was apprehended at the spot and in fact the appellant was running a mini gun factory. Despite the appellant being in custody since 29.05.2025 but regard being had to the nature of allegations levelled against the appellant, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal which accordingly stands dismissed at this stage. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Dated, the 13th May, 2026 A. Sanga/- Uploaded on 14 /05/2026 -2-