Jharkhand High Court
A.B.A./3436/2017 of Maja Mirja And Ors Vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.3436 of 2017 ------ 1. Maja Mirja @ Md. Maja Mirja, 2. Soraj Mirja @ Siraj Khan @ Soraj 3. Gudan Mirja, 4. Ajmal Mirja @ Md. Ajmal 5. Fucho Mirja @ Fcuho 6. Pal Mirja @ Pal Mirja @ Pal @ Md. Afzal Hussain All sons of Ilyas Mirja.
[2026:JHHC:29878]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.3436 of 2017
------
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Maja Mirja @ Md. Maja Mirja,
2. Soraj Mirja @ Siraj Khan @ Soraj
3. Gudan Mirja,
4. Ajmal Mirja @ Md. Ajmal
5. Fucho Mirja @ Fcuho
6. Pal Mirja @ Pal Mirja @ Pal @ Md. Afzal Hussain All sons of Ilyas Mirja. Residents of Village Mandrey Tola, P.O.- Mirjaganj, P.S.- Jamua, District- Giridih (Jharkhand). .... .... …. Petitioners
Versus The State of Jharkhand
.... .... .... Opposite Party
------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioners: Mr. Mahesh Kr. Sinha 2, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, Addl.P.P.
Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, Advocate.
------ Order No:-07 Dated:-06-10-2026
Heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this anticipatory bail application has been filed by the petitioners for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Jamua P.S. Case No. 78 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No. 931 of 2016. By drawing the attention of the court to Annexure-02 which is the order dated 11.04.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Giridih in connection with Jamua P.S. Case No. 78 of 2016; it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioners surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate and were released on bail by furnishing bail bond of Rs.5,000/-. Learned counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail to the petitioner and submits that the anticipatory bail application is not maintainable since the petitioner has already been released on bail by the court. In view of the submission made by the petitioners, as the petitioners have already been granted bail, this Court is of the considered view that they are now no longer entitled for anticipatory bail, in absence of the essential ingredient of a pre-emption of their being arrested in connection with any offence. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail to the petitioners is hereby dismissed as not maintainable.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated:- 06.10.2026 Amar/