MD Imran Alias MD Imran Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

MD Imran Alias MD Imran Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 21.05.2025 set aside; both appellants directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Giridih; delay of 29 days in filing the appeal condoned.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 29 days in filing the appeal should be condoned (I.A. No. 9605 of 2025). +1 more

Court's answer

Delay of 29 days in filing the appeal is condoned and I.A. No. 9605 of 2025 stands disposed of.

Ratio / Principle

The order dated 21.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Giridih rejecting the appellants' bail prayer is set aside.

Key takeaways

Regard being had to the appellants' custody for more than six months, they are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Giridih.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal (Cr. A. (DB) No. 986 of 2025, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, order dated 01.09.2025; Coram: Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, JJ.) against the order dated 21.05.2025 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Giridih rejecting bail in B.P. No. 281 of 2025 arising out of Jamua P.S. Case No. 37 of 2025, wherein the appellants (Md. Imran @ Md. Imran Khan and Md. Sonu, residents of Munger, Bihar) were alleged to have been apprehended from a semi-constructed house in which an illegal gun factory was found to be operating. Delay of 29 days in filing the appeal condoned (I.A. No. 9605 of 2025). Regard being had to the appellants' custody for more than six months (in custody since 23.02.2025), the Division Bench set aside the impugned order and directed release on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Giridih. Appeal allowed and disposed of.

2025:JHHC:26536-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. A. (DB) No. 986 of 2025

Md. Imran @ Md. Imran Khan, aged about 30 years, son of Md. Khalil

Md. Sonu, aged about 34 years, son of Late Md. Aslam, Both resident of Hazratganj Chowk at Munger, P.O. & P.S.Kasimbazar, Dist. Munger (Bihar) ... ... Appellants

Versus

The State of Jharkhand …… Respondent

----- CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

-------For the Appellants : Mr. Vijay Kumar Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl.P.P.

Order No. 02/ Dated: 01^st September, 2025

I.A. No. 9605 of 2025

Heard Mr. Vijay Kumar Roy, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned Spl.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.

This application has been preferred by the appellants for condoning the delay of 29 days in filing the appeal.

Having been satisfied with the reasons assigned in the instant application, the same is allowed and the delay of 29 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

I.A. No. 9605 of 2025 stands disposed of.

Cr. A. (DB) No. 986 of 2025

This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Giridih in connection with B.P. No. 281 of 2025 arising out of Jamua P.S. Case No. 37 of 2025, whereby and where under the prayer for bail of the appellants has been rejected.

It has been alleged that the appellants were apprehended from a semi-constructed house and illegal gun factory was found to be operating in the said house.

Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants that they are in custody since 23.02.2025. It has been submitted

1

Cr. App. (D.B.) No. 986 of 2025

2025:JHHC:26536-DB

that the appellants have one criminal antecedents.

Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellants and has submitted that from the place of occurrence seven pieces of portion of barrel of a gun, six pieces of butt portion of an iron pistol were recovered.

Regard being had to the fact that the appellants are in custody for more than six months, we while setting aside the order dated 21.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Giridih in connection with B.P. No. 281 of 2025 arising out of Jamua P.S. Case No. 37 of 2025, direct the appellants to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Giridih.

Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed and disposed of.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

Basant/Arpit

2

Cr. App. (D.B.) No. 986 of 2025