Bagan Hembrom v. The State of Jharkhand
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed
Provisions considered
- National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 s. 21(4)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 379, 414
- Explosive Substance Act ss. 4, 5
Key paragraphs
- Para 88. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 04.02.2025 passed in B.P. No.14 of 2025 by the learned Sessions Judge, Dumka, is hereby, quashed and set aside. 9.
- Para 1111. It is made clear that any observation(s) made hereinabove is only for the purpose of consideration of bail having no bearing with the trial. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT/Anit 2
Judgment
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Appellants For the Respondent : Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, A.P.P. ------ Order No.02 / Dated : 20.03.2025
The instant appeal, filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 04.02.2025 passed in B.P. No. 14 of 2025 by the learned Sessions Judge, Dumka in connection with Shikaripara P. S. Case No. 69 of 2022, registered under Sections 379, 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 4/ 5 of Explosive Substance Act, Section 21(5) of M.M.D.R. Act and Section 13 of Jharkhand (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka, wherein the prayer for regular bail of the appellants, has been rejected.
It has been contended on behalf of appellants that the appellants are absolutely innocent and have falsely been implicated in the instant case.
It has further been contended that the appellants have been made accused only on the basis of suspicion and they have no concern with the seized article and no evidence regarding the involvement of the appellants with respect to illegal mining/transportation of coal.
It has also been contended that the identically placed co-accused persons, namely, Rupai Marandi @ Rupay Marandi and Dhena Soren, Kalimuddin Ansari @ Kalim Mian @ Kalim Ansari have been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 27.06.2024, and 18.10.2022 passed in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) Nos. 1103 of 2023 and 1104 of 2022 respectively.
While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. However, he is fair enough to admit the fact that the case of the aforesaid co-accused 1 persons as referred above, who have already been granted bail by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court, are identically placed to that of the case of the present appellants.
After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that identically placed co-accused persons namely, Rupai Marandi @ Rupay Marandi and Dhena Soren, Kalimuddin Ansari @ Kalim Mian @ Kalim Ansari, have been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 27.06.2024, and 18.10.2022 passed in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) Nos. 1103 of 2023 and 1104 of 2022 respectively, therefore, there is no reason to take distinct view, so far as the case of the present appellants is concerned.
Considering the aforesaid fact, this Court is of the view that the impugned order needs to be interfered with.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 04.02.2025 passed in B.P. No.14 of 2025 by the learned Sessions Judge, Dumka, is hereby, quashed and set aside. 9.
Operative part
In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed. In consequence thereof, the appellants, above named, are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka in connection with Shikaripara P.S. Case No. 69 of 2022, subject to the conditions that the appellants shall co-operate in the trial and shall not absent themselves on the date fixed without any cogent cause; and shall not commit offence of the like nature. In failure, the learned Court shall have liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law so that trial be not hindered and further that one of the bailors should be close relatives of the appellants, which is to be accompanied by affidavit justifying that such bailor is close relatives of the appellants.
It is made clear that any observation(s) made hereinabove is only for the purpose of consideration of bail having no bearing with the trial. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT/Anit 2
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 — s. 21(4); Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 379, 414; Explosive Substance Act — ss. 4, 5.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.