KATI MARANDI ALIAS KATTI MURMU ALIAS KATI DA v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
Cr.A(DB)/627/2026 · 2026-07-17
Arun Kumar Rai, Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Criminal Appealbody2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 21802 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 21802 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:21032-DB )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 627 of 2026
Kati Marandi @ Katti Murmu @ Kati Da, S/o Babu Ram Murmu, R/o Bekatpur, P.O. & P.S.- Pirtand, 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. Shahid Yunus, Adv. For the State : Mr. Prabir Kr. Chatterjee, Spl. P.P.
---------
I.A. No. 6543 of 2026
02/17.07.2026 Heard Mr. Shahid Yunus, 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 15 days in filing the appeal. Having been satisfied with the reasons assigned in the instant application, the same is allowed and the delay of 15 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. I.A. No. 6543 of 2026 stands disposed of. Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 627 of 2026
This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.02.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih in M.C.A. No. 235/2026, arising out of Madhuban P.S. Case No. 20/2016, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected. It has been alleged that the extremists had blown an under constructed Government building. It appears that so far as the appellant and other accused persons are concerned, they have been implicated on account of the fact that they were taking the name of
each other at the time of the incident. It further appears that the appellant is in custody since 12.02.2022. Learned Spl. P.P. has submitted that out of thirteen charge-sheet witnesses six witnesses have already been examined by the prosecution. Regard being had to the period of custody undergone by the appellant and the manner of his implication, we while setting aside the order dated 18.02.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih in M.C.A. No. 235/2026, arising out of Madhuban P.S. Case No. 20/2016, direct that the appellant 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-I, Giridih in connection with Madhuban P.S. Case No. 20/2016, subject to the condition that the appellant shall remain physically present before the learned trial court on each and every date till the conclusion of the trial unless prevented by sufficient cause. This appeal stands allowed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Dated, the 17th July, 2026 A. Sanga/- Uploaded on 27 /07/2026
-2-