logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 Jhar HC 024 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Jharkhand
Case No : Cr. A. (DB) No. 07 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Parties : Md. Mustafa @ Mussu Versus The State of Jharkhand
Appearing Advocates : For the Appellant: R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate. For the Respondents: Vineet Kumar Vashistha, Spl.P.P.
Date of Judgment : 16-01-2026
Head Note :-
Comparative Citation:
2026 JHHC 1117,
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders / Regulations Mentioned:
- None

2. Catch Words:
- Bail
- Custody
- Worker
- Gun factory

3. Summary:
The appellant, a worker in a gun factory, was arrested on 29‑05‑2025 and has been in custody since. He sought bail before the Sessions Court (B.P. No.1114 of 2025) which was denied on 16‑12‑2025, and earlier before this Court (Cr. Ap. (DB) No.1009 of 2025) which was also rejected on 28‑08‑2025. The appellant’s counsel argued that the prolonged detention was unwarranted. The learned Additional Sessions Judge’s order was set aside, and the appellant was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties of the same amount, to the satisfaction of the Addl. Civil Judge‑cum‑Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. The appeal was consequently allowed.

4. Conclusion:
Appeal Allowed
Judgment :-

1. Heard Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Sr. counsel for the appellant and learned Spl.P.P.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.12.2025 passed in B.P. No.1114 of 2025, arising out of Mahuda P.S. Case No. 69 of 2025, by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-XI, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected.

3. It appears that the appellant had earlier moved for grant of bail before this Court in Cr. Ap. (DB) No. 1009 of 2025 which was however rejected at that stage vide order dated 28.08.2025.

4. Submission has been advanced by the learned Sr. counsel for the appellant that the appellant is in custody since 29.05.2025. It has further been submitted that the appellant was merely a worker in the gun factory which was being run in the premises of Murshid Ansari.

5. Learned Spl.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.

6. Regard being had to the observations made earlier and period of custody undergone by the appellant, we while setting aside the order dated 16.12.2025 passed in B.P. No.1114 of 2025, arising out of Mahuda P.S. Case No. 69 of 2025, by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-XI, Dhanbad, direct the appellant to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum- Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.

7. Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed and disposed of.
 
  CDJLawJournal