Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 6328 (JHR)

MANOHAR PARAHIYA ALIAS BIMLESH JI v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Cr.A(DB)/467/2026 · 2026-04-18

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, Rongon Mukhopadhyay

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:11221-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 467 of 2026 Manohar Parahiya @ Bimlesh Ji, son of Hirdan Parahiya, resident of village: Amwatikar, PO & PS: Chhipadohar, District: Latehar. ... 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. Rajesh Kr. Mandal, Advocate For the State : APP --- 02/18.04.2026 I.A. No. 16047 of 2025 Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. This application has been preferred by the appellant for condoning a delay of 12 days in filing the appeal. Having been satisfied with the reasons assigned in this application, the delay of 12 days which had occurred in filing this appeal is condoned and this I.A. is allowed and disposed of. Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 467 of 2026 This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Latehar in B.P. No. 434 of 2025, arising out of Latehar PS Case No. 218 of 2020, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected. It has been alleged that there was an encounter with the extremists and the police personnel and after sometime, the extremists taking the advantage of forest cover had fled away. Subsequently on a search conducted at the place of occurrence several incriminating articles were recovered. Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been implicated on suspicion. It has further been submitted that some of the co-accused persons have been granted bail in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1525 of 2025 and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1240 of 2024. Learned counsel adds that the appellant is in custody since 07.08.2025. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant. Regard being had to the manner of implication of the appellant and the fact that similarly situated co-accused persons have been granted bail, as noted above, we while setting aside the order dated 17.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Latehar in B.P. No. 434 of 2025, arising out of Latehar PS Case No. 218 of 2020, direct the appellant be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M, Latehar in connection with Latehar PS Case No. 218 of 2020. This appeal is allowed. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.) 18.04.2026 S.B. Uploaded on 18.04.2026 -2-