Allowed

Mukesh Ram @ Azad @ Ravi @ Kullu v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC11 Sept 2026Cr.A(DB)/1076/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand allowed the bail appeal filed by the appellant against the Additional Sessions Judge's order rejecting the bail prayer in a case involving recovered bombs, setting aside the impugned order and directing release on bail.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 28.07.2026 rejecting the bail prayer was set aside, and the appellant was directed to be released on bail by surrendering a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties.

Mukesh Ram @ Azad @ Ravi @ Kullu Vs State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:27340-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1076 of 2026

¶3

Mukesh Ram @ Azad @ Ravi @ Kullu, S/o Late Nanhaku Ram, R/o Vill- Purani Palheya, P.O.- Palheya, P.S.- Manika, Dist.- Latehar.

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent

¶6

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

¶8

--For the Appellant : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Adv. For the State : P.P.

¶9

02/11.09.2026 Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and learned P.P.

¶10

This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.07.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latehar in Misc. Criminal Application No. 567/2026 in connection with Manika P.S. Case No. 123/2021, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected.

¶11

It has been alleged that on an information, a raid was carried out in the forest near village Barvaiya and on a search can bombs etc. were recovered.

¶12

Submission has been advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that admittedly no extremist was found at the place of occurrence. It has been submitted that it is the villagers who had named the appellant and other accused persons of being involved in planting bombs. Learned counsel submits that the appellant is in custody since 24.09.2025.

¶13

Learned P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant and has submitted that the appellant has got several criminal antecedents.

¶14

¶15

Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:27340-DB

¶16

Regard being had to the fact that the appellant seems to have been implicated primarily on the basis of suspicion, we while setting aside the order dated 28.07.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latehar in Misc. Criminal Application No. 567/2026 in connection with Manika P.S. Case No. 123/2021, direct 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 learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latehar in connection with Manika P.S. Case No. 123/2021.

¶17

This appeal is allowed .

¶18

( Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶19

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

¶20

Dated- 11^th September, 2026. Preet/Uploaded on: 14 /09/2026.

¶21

Mukesh Ram @ Azad @ Ravi @ Kullu v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Ram @ Azad @ Ravi @ Kullu v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases