Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 18425 (JHR)

UMESH GIRI ALIAS UMESH PANDEY ALIAS UMESH DAS v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Cr.A(DB)/719/2026 · 2026-06-29

Arun Kumar Rai, Rongon Mukhopadhyay

Civil Appealbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:18824-DB p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 719 of 2026 Umesh Giri @ Umesh Pandey @ Umesh Das S/o Murari Das, aged about 34 Years, residents of Village-Chakchuko, P.O. & P.S.- Bishungarh, District- Hazaribagh…. …. 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. Jitesh Kumar, Advocate For the Resp.-State: A.P.P. --- 02/ 29.06.2026 Heard Mr. Jitesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.04.2026, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge- VI, Giridih in M.C.A. No. 636 of 2026, arising out of Bagodar P.S. Case No. 12/2019 whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected. 3. It appears that the appellant was earlier granted bail in B.A. No. 11460 of 2019 on 20th December, 2019 with the condition that the appellant shall remain physically present before the leaned Trial Court on each and every date till the conclusion of the trial. However, the appellant did not appear on certain dates after which his bail bond was cancelled and 2026:JHHC:18824-DB p. 2 it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that he is in custody since 15.06.2023. 4. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant. 5. It appears from a perusal of impugned order dated 23.04.2026 that only the Sergeant Major is left to be examined by the prosecution which would mean that the trial is at its fag end. Moreover, the appellant seems to have 32 criminal antecedents and regard being had to fact that despite the specific condition, imposed upon the appellant while granting bail to him, he had not adhered to the same and considering that the trial is on the verge of conclusion, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order dated 23.04.2026 and consequently, we dismiss this appeal. 6. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) 29th June, 2026 P.K.S./ Suman Uploaded