Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 18048 (JHR)

UTTAM MALLAH ALIAS UTTAM KUMAR MALLAH @ UTAM KUMAR v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Cr.A(DB)/706/2026 · 2026-06-24

Arun Kumar Rai, Rongon Mukhopadhyay

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:18426-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (D.B) No.706 of 2026 Uttam Mallah @ Uttam Kumar Mallah @ Uttam Kumar, aged about 18 years, Son of Baikunth Mallah, Resident of Village-Manjhiladih, P.O.-Gadi Srirampur, P.S.- Giridih(M), District-Giridih … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … Respondent ---------- Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ------- For the Appellant : Mr. Vijay Kumar Roy, Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P. ----- Order No.02/Dated: 24.06.2026 1. Heard Mr. Vijay Kumar Roy, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.05.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Giridih in connection with B.P. No.260 of 2026 arising out of Giridih (M) P.S. Case No. 277 of 2024, whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail of appellant has been rejected. 3. It has been alleged that a sootly bomb was thrown near the sponge-iron factory and taking advantage of the smoke, the accused persons are said to have committed assault upon the guards. 4. It has further been alleged that one of the accused persons whose face was covered could be recognized by the informant as the present appellant. 5. Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is in 2026:JHHC:18426-DB 2 custody since 22.04.2026. It has further been submitted that there is no injury report in the case diary and in fact it has not been ascertained as to the person who has thrown the sootly bomb. 6. Learned counsel submits that no injury has been effected on account of the blasting of the bomb and the assault is alleged to have taken place by the appellant and other accused persons. 7. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant. 8. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, we while setting aside the order dated 16.05.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Giridih in connection with B.P. No.260 of 2026 arising out of Giridih (M) P.S. Case No. 277 of 2024 direct the appellant to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Giridih in connection with B.P. No.260 of 2026 arising out of Giridih (M) P.S. Case No. 277 of 2024. 9. This appeal is allowed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) 24th June, 2026 R.K/Rajnish