Munna Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 38 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Munna Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 January, 2026

Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1433 of 2025

    1. Munna Yadav, aged about 28 years, son of Bholi Mahto.
    2. Shakti Yadav @ Shakti Kumar Yadav, aged about 30 years, son of
       Bholi Mahto.
    3. Nilmani Yadav, aged about 50 years, son of Kutlal Mahto.
    4. Sitaram Yadav, aged about 26 years, son of Bhagat Yadav.
    5. Hiraman Yadav, aged about 32 years, son of Hemlal Yadav.
       All are residents of Village Chitpokhra, P.O. Ghormara, P.S.
       Mohanpur, District Deoghar, Jharkhand.
       Appellant no.3 at present residing at Bapi (Vapi), P.O. Bapi Town
       (Vapi Town), P.S. - Balsar, District Valsad (wrongly mentioned in
       the impugned judgment as Gujarat), State Gujarat.
                                                    ...      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. A.K. Choudhary, Adv. For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl. P.P.

-------

Order No.03/Dated- 05.01.2026

1. Heard Mr. A.K. Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellants and learned Spl. P.P.

2. This application has been preferred by the appellants for grant of bail to them during the pendency of this appeal.

3. The appellants have been convicted for the offences under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(a) of the Explosive Substances Act and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years along with fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence under Section 3(a) of the Explosive Substances Act.

4. It has been alleged that when the informant on 20.09.2020 had gone outside his house to urinate, the accused persons armed with various weapons had started running towards him and had also thrown a bomb which exploded.

5. Submission has been advanced by learned counsel for the appellants that admittedly, there was a long-standing land dispute between the appellants and the informant which resulted in false implication of the appellants. It has further been submitted that the appellants were all along on bail during trial. Learned counsel adds that in fact the entire trial is vitiated on account of non-compliance of Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act.

6. Learned Spl. P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellants and has submitted that some of the appellants have got several criminal antecedents.

7. It appears that admittedly, the consent of the District Magistrate had not been taken in terms of Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act. Moreover, it appears that no injuries were found on the person of any of the victims.

8. On consideration of the aforesaid, we are inclined to admit the appellants on bail. Accordingly, during the pendency of this appeal, the appellants are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Deoghar in Sessions Trial No.247 of 2022 arising out of Mohanpur P.S. Case No.175 of 2020 (corresponding to G.R. Case No.388 of 2021).

9. I.A. No.16128 of 2025 is allowed accordingly.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Dated: 5th January, 2026 Sachin/