Allowed¶22

Tulsi Ganjhu v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC19 Feb 2026Cr.A(DB)/136/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand HC (DB) Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 136 of 2026, Tulsi Ganjhu v. State of Jharkhand, dec. 19.02.2026 (Rongon Mukhopadhyay & Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, JJ.): bail rejection by Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Latehar in B.P. No. 456/2025 (Latehar P.S. Case No. 236/2021, extremist-police encounter, one policeman killed) set aside; bail granted on Rs. 10,000 bond with two like sureties to C.J.M., Latehar on parity with co-accused bailed in Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos. 209/2023, 322/2024, 1061/2025; appeal allowed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned bail-rejection order dated 01.12.2025 set aside; appellant ordered released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M., Latehar. ¶22

Tulsi Ganjhu Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant — alleged to have been implicated on a disclosure made by villagers in the firing incident of Latehar P.S. Case No. 236/2021, and similarly placed to co-accused already granted bail by this Court — should be released on bail despite rejection of his prayer by the Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Latehar.

¶15

Court's answer

The order dated 01.12.2025 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Latehar in B.P. No. 456/2025 (Latehar P.S. Case No. 236/2021), rejecting the appellant's bail prayer, is set aside.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

Having regard to the parity with co-accused already granted bail, the appellant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M., Latehar.

¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal (Division Bench) — Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 136 of 2026, Tulsi Ganjhu v. The State of Jharkhand, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava), decided 19.02.2026. The appeal challenged the order dated 01.12.2025 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Latehar in B.P. No. 456/2025 (connected with Latehar P.S. Case No. 236/2021) rejecting the appellant's prayer for bail. The underlying allegation was an exchange of firing between extremists and a Police party in which one Police personnel died, with recovery of incriminating articles, the appellant being stated to have been implicated on a disclosure made by villagers. Learned counsel pleaded parity with co-accused granted bail by this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 209 of 2023, Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 322 of 2024 and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1061 of 2025; the learned A.P.P. opposed bail but did not dispute the similarity. Regard being had to this, the Division Bench set aside the impugned order and directed release of the appellant on bail on a bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M., Latehar. Appeal allowed.

¶1

Neutral Citation

¶2

(2026:JHHC:4890-DB)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 136 of 2026

¶4

Tulsi Ganjhu , S/o Budhan Ganjhu, R/o Vill- Lachchipur (Dokar), P.O.- Holang, P.S.- Balumath, Dist.- Latehar.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent

¶8

¶9

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

¶10

¶11

For the Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv. For the State : A.P.P.

¶12

02/19.02.2026 Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P.

¶13

This appeal is directed against the order dated 01.12.2025 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Latehar in B.P. No. 456/2025 in connection with Latehar P.S. Case No. 236/2021, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected.

¶14

It has been alleged that there was an exchange of firing between the extremists and the Police party as a result of which, one of the Police personnel had died. The extremists had fled away and on search of the place of occurrence, several incriminating articles were recovered.

¶15

Submission has been advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been implicated on the disclosure made by the villagers. It has been submitted that in similar circumstances, several co-accused persons have been granted bail by this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 209 of 2023, Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 322 of 2024 and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1061 of 2025.

¶16

Learned A.P.P. though has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant, but has not disputed the fact that the

¶17

¶18

Neutral Citation

¶19

(2026:JHHC:4890-DB)

¶20

case of the present appellant is similar to those co-accused who have been granted bail as noted above.

¶21

Regard being had to the above, we while setting aside the order dated 01.12.2025 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Latehar in B.P. No. 456/2025 in connection with Latehar P.S. Case No. 236/2021direct 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 C.J.M., Latehar.

¶22

This appeal is allowed .

¶23

( Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶24

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶25

Dated- 19^th February, 2026. Preet/Uploaded on: 20 /02/2026.

¶26

Tulsi Ganjhu v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tulsi Ganjhu v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishal Singh Alias Vishal Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Uday Uraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pradeep Yadav Alias Pradeep Kumar Yadav Alias Chhotu Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ravi Anand Vs State of Jharkhand

Victim Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chambra Pahadiya Vs State of Jharkhand