Jharkhand High Court
Cr.A(DB)/1083/2026 of SUDARSHAN BARJO Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 29 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.1083 of 2026 ----------- 1. Sudarshan Barjo aged about 28 years son of Late Ishak Barjo, resident of village-Baliba, P.O. Chhotanagra and P.S. Chhotanagra, District- Singhbhum West 2. Vikash Honhaga aged about 35 years
2026:JHHC:29215-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.1083 of 2026
-----------
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. Sudarshan Barjo aged about 28 years son of Late Ishak Barjo, resident of village-Baliba, P.O. Chhotanagra and P.S. Chhotanagra, District- Singhbhum West
2. Vikash Honhaga aged about 35 years son of Bartho Honhoga, resident of Chhotanagra, P.O. & P.S. Chhotanagra, District-Singhbhum West
…. …. Appellants Versus
The State of Jharkhand
…. …. Respondent
CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ram Sharma
-----
For the Appellants : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate
For the State
: A.P.P.
-----
03/29.09.2026 Heard Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.P.P.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.05.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in M.C.A. No.448 of 2026 arising out of Chhotanagra P.S. Case No.26 of 2025 correspondent to S.T. No.60 of 2026, whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail of the appellants has been rejected.
It has been alleged that the accused persons were involved in keeping a watch over the movement of the police and to supply ration to the extremists. It has further been alleged that on account of the Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) planted by the extremist, the same blasted, as a result of which two security personnel have suffered injuries.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are in custody since 20.12.2025. It has further been submitted that there is no specific allegation against the appellants that they were involved in planting of Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) to cause damage to the police party.
Learned A.P.P. on perusal of the case diary has submitted that the role of the appellants have been described by the witnesses in which it has been
2026:JHHC:29215-DB stated that they used to keep watch over the movement of the police as well as used to supply food to the extremists.
Regard being had to the limited role played by the appellant which primarily related to harboring of the extremist, we while setting aside the order dated 20.05.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in M.C.A. No.448 of 2026 arising out of Chhotanagra P.S. Case No.26 of 2025 correspondent to S.T. No.60 of 2026 direct that the appellants above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in connection with Chhotanagra P.S. Case No.26 of 2025 correspondent to S.T. No.60 of 2026, subject to the condition that the appellants 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.
This appeal is allowed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Ram Sharma, J.)
29.09.2026
Shahid/
Uploaded on 01.10.2026