Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8702 (JHR)

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

Cr.A(DB)/278/2026 · 2026-03-24

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, Rongon Mukhopadhyay

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:8273-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 278 of 2026 Uttam Mallah @ Uttam Kumar Mallah, 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 PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Appellant : Mr. Vijay Kumar Roy, Advocate. For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P. --------- Order No. 03/Dated: 24th March, 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 09.01.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Giridih in A.B.P. No. 2151/2025 in connection with Giridih (M) P.S. Case No. 277/2024, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant has been rejected. 3. It has been alleged that some unknown persons had thrown a sootly bomb towards the security guards, which exploded and injuries were caused upon Guddu Rai and Sajan Rai. 4. Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no injury report on record. It has further been submitted that there is discrepancy with respect to identification of the appellant, as it is said that after the bomb had exploded, the entire area was engulfed in smoke and therefore, it cannot be said that in the midst of such smoke, the appellant could have been identified. 5. Learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant. 2026:JHHC:8273-DB 2 6. It appears that while fleeing away, the mask covering the appellant had fallen down, which resulted in his identification. 7. Regard being had to the identification of the appellant and nature of offence, we are not inclined to admit the appellant on anticipatory bail and consequently, this appeal stands dismissed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) March 24, 2026 Sunil/ Uploaded on 28.03.2026