Sonu Manjhi Vs State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sonu Manjhi Vs State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail granted to the appellant: the order dated 22.01.2025 passed in M.C.A. No. 90 of 2025 was set aside and the appellant directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge II at West Singhbhum (Chaibasa) in connection with S.T. No. 110 of 2024.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 22.01.2025 rejecting the appellant's bail prayer in M.C.A. No. 90 of 2025 (S.T. No. 110 of 2024) should be set aside and the appellant released on bail.

Court's answer

Regard being had to the manner of implication and the period of custody undergone by the appellant (in custody since 11.05.2023), the Court set aside the order dated 22.01.2025 passed in M.C.A. No. 90 of 2025 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge I, Chakardharpur and directed that the appellant be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000 (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge II at West Singhbhum (Chaibasa) in connection with S.T. No. 110 of 2024.

Ratio / Principle

The appeal is allowed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — Appeal (Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1003 of 2025, High Court of Jharkhand) against order dated 22.01.2025 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge I, Chakardharpur in M.C.A. No. 90 of 2025 (S.T. No. 110 of 2024) rejecting the appellant's bail prayer. Allegation: miscreants arrived at a construction site, snatched the informant's mobile, fired in the air, and disclosed the appellant as the new Commander of the area, stating that construction work could not commence without payment of levy; the appellant was named by the miscreants as the new Area Commander of the banned organization, though not present at the place of occurrence. Appellant in custody since 11.05.2023. Delay of 60 days in filing the appeal condoned (I.A. No. 10842 of 2025). Held: regard being had to the manner of implication and the period of custody undergone by the appellant, the impugned order set aside and the appellant directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge II at West Singhbhum (Chaibasa) in connection with S.T. No. 110 of 2024. Appeal allowed. (Coram: Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, JJ.; Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:27024-DB.)

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:27024-DB )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1003 of 2025

… … Sonu Manjhi 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. Suraj Kishore Prasad, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, Special P.P.

6/08.09.2025 I. A. No. 10842 of 2025:

Heard Mr. Suraj Kishore Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, learned Special P.P. for the State.

This interlocutory application has been preferred by the appellant for condoning the delay of 60 days in filing this appeal.

Having been satisfied with the reasons assigned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 60 days in filing this appeal is hereby condoned.

I. A. No. 10842 of 2025 stands disposed of.

Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1003 of 2025:

This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.01.2025 passed in M.C.A. No. 90 of 2025 corresponding to S.T. No. 110 of 2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge I, Chakardharpur whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected.

It has been alleged that some miscreants had arrived at the construction site and snatched the mobile of the informant and had also fired in the air. The miscreants had disclosed that the present appellant is the new Commander of the area and therefore without giving levy to him, construction work cannot be started.

Submission has been advanced that the appellant was not present at the place of occurrence, but has been named by the miscreants as the

-2-

new Area Commander of the banned organization. The appellant is in custody since 11.05.2023

Learned Special P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.

Regard being had to the manner of implication and the period of custody undergone by the appellant, we while setting aside the order dated 22.01.2025 passed in M.C.A. No. 90 of 2025 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge I, Chakardharpur, direct that the appellant above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/(Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge II at West Singhbhum (Chaibasa) in connection with S.T. No. 110 of 2024.

This appeal is allowed.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

R. Shekhar Cp 3