Jharkhand High Court
Cr.A(DB)/832/2026 of IMAMUDDIN @ IMAMUDDIN ANSARI @ SONU Vs STATE OF JHARKHAND on 2 September 2026
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 832 of 2026 Imamuddin @ Imamuddin Ansari @ Sonu, aged about 25 years, S/o Insanuddin Ansari @ Insanuddin, R/o Bhowra 7 No., Jharia, Kanchanpur, P.O. – Jharia, P.S. – Bhowra (Jorapokhar), District –
2026:JHHC:26545-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 832 of 2026
Imamuddin @ Imamuddin Ansari @ Sonu, aged about 25 years, S/o Insanuddin Ansari @ Insanuddin, R/o Bhowra 7 No., Jharia, Kanchanpur, P.O. – Jharia, P.S. – Bhowra (Jorapokhar), District –
Dhanbad., Permanent R/o Kendua Hanuman Gadhi, P.O. & P.S. –
Kenduadih, District - Dhanbad.
….. Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
….. Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
--------
For the Appellant
: Mr. Bhaswat Prakash, Advocate.
For the State
: Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.
---------
Order No. 02/Dated: 2nd September, 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. Heard Mr. Bhaswat Prakash, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.05.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Dhanbad in M.C.A. No. 1107 of 2026, arising out of Jorapokhar (Bhowra O.P.) P.S. Case No. 137 of 2025, 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. Appeal (D.B.) No. 84 of 2026, which however was dismissed vide order dated 02.02.2026. Subsequent thereto, the appellant had once again moved for grant of bail in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) (Filing) No. 8392 of 2026, which was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 14.05.2026. Within a month of withdrawal of the earlier bail application, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
4. Submission has been advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that out of eight charge-sheeted witnesses, four witnesses
2026:JHHC:26545-DB
have been examined so far, out of whom, three have been declared hostile by the prosecution. Learned counsel adds that the appellant is in custody since 01.11.2025.
5. Learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.
6. It appears from the allegations that explosive substances were found in a house and there is no denial from the side of the appellant that the house in question did not belong to the appellant. Moreover, the trial is going on and four witnesses have been examined, as stated by learned counsel for the appellant and on consideration of the aforesaid circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 18.05.2026 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Dhanbad in M.C.A. No. 1107 of 2026 arising out of Jorapokhar (Bhowra O.P.) P.S. Case No. 137 of 2025 and consequently, we dismiss this appeal.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
September 2, 2026 Sunil/ Uploaded on 05.09.2026