Juna Marandi @ Baijun Kisku @ Langra vs The State Of Jharkhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 2214 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Juna Marandi @ Baijun Kisku @ Langra vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 March, 2026

Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

                                                    ( 2026:JHHC:7830-DB )

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF                    JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                       Cr. A (D.B.) No. 259 of 2026
                                   ---------

Juna Marandi @ Baijun Kisku @ Langra, aged about 54 years, S/o-of late- Jurgu Kisku, R/o-Village-Dardmara tola Jumniyatand, P.O. and P.S.- Khukhra, District-Giridih, Jharkhand ... ... Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent

---------

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

----------

For the Appellant : Md. Altamash Khan, Advocate Mr. Shahid Yunus, Advocate For the Resp. State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, A.P.P.

-----------

th 02/Dated: 20 March, 2026

1. Heard Md. Altamash Khan, learned counsel for the appellant and

learned A.P.P.

2. This application has been preferred by the appellant for condoning the

delay of 14 days in filing of this appeal. Having been satisfied with the

reasons assigned in the instant application, the same is allowed and the

delay of 14 days in filing of this appeal is hereby, condoned.

3. I.A. No.2324 of 2026 stands disposed of.

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.259 of 2026

4. This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.10.2025 passed by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih in Misc. Criminal

Application No.2107 of 2025 in connection with Madhuban P.S. Case ( 2026:JHHC:7830-DB )

No.02 of 2018 (S.T. No.206 of 2024) whereby and whereunder, the

prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected.

5. It has been alleged that there was an exchange of firing between the

police personnel and the extremists and being outmaneuvered, the

extremists fled away. Subsequently on a search of the place of the

occurrence, several incriminating articles were recovered.

6. Submission has been advanced by learned counsel for the appellant

that the appellant has been implicated on the confession of the co-

accused persons. Learned counsel submits that the appellant is in

custody since 10.01.2024 and some of the co-accused persons have

been granted bail in B.A. No.1111 of 2019, B.A. No.2568 of 2019 and

B.A. No.6632 of 2022.

7. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant and has

submitted that out of 11 charge-sheeted witnesses, 7 witnesses have

been examined.

8. However, considering the period of custody and the manner of

implication and the fact that some of the co-accused has been granted

bail as noted above, we, while setting aside the order dated 13.10.2025

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih in Misc.

Criminal Application No.2107 of 2025 in connection with Madhuban

P.S. Case No.02 of 2018 (S.T. No.206 of 2024), direct the appellant be

( 2026:JHHC:7830-DB )

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-I, Giridih, subject to the condition that the

appellant shall remain physically present before the learned trial court

on each and every date till the conclusion of the trial unless prevented

by sufficient cause.

9. This appeal is allowed.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) 20/03/2026

Pappu/-