The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 987 of 2023 Jaleshwar Mahto @ Jale ------ Versus .... ... Appellant The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent
Legal Reasoning
----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the Appellant For the Respondent -------- : Mr. Jyoti Prasad Sinha, Advocate : Ms. Amrita Kumari, A.P.P. Order No. 05 / Dated: 1st November, 2023 -------- The appeal is under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 directed against the order dated 24.05.2023 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st, Bermo at Tenughat, in B.P. No. 85 of 2023, by which the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with Mahuwatand P.S. Case No. 25 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 379 of 2015, for the offence under Section 25(1-A) / 26(2) / 35 of the Arms Act and under Section 3/5 of the Explosive Substance Act and under Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act, has been rejected. 2. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that it is a case where the appellant has been falsely implicated merely on the basis of the reference of name made in the diary which was recovered from the spot by the police. It has been submitted that although the instance of four criminal antecedents have been cited in the case diary as also in affidavit in objection, but it would be evident from the reference of the aforesaid antecedents that in two of the cases i.e. Mahuwatand P.S. Case No. 66 of 2011 and Gomia P.S. Case No. 59 of 2010, the appellant has been acquitted. So far other two cases are concerned i.e. Gomia P.S. Case No. 129 of 2009 and Gomia P.S. Case No. 40 of 2016 the charge-sheet has already been submitted. The further submission has been made that in the instant case also the charge-sheet has been submitted on 26.04.2023 and the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 29.03.2023. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant based upon the aforesaid ground has submitted that the learned Trial Court since has not appreciated the aforesaid fact, therefore, the impugned order may be interfered with. Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 987 of 2023 -2- 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the day when the appellant had been implicated in the instant case, he was working in Bangalore in a private limited company and to that effect a certificate has also been appended as Annexure-2 to the main petition. 5. While on the other hand Ms. Amrita Kumari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the submission / prayer made on behalf of the appellant for his release from judicial custody. The ground has been taken for making such opposition is of four pending criminal cases. 6. It has been submitted that it is incorrect on the part of the appellant to take the ground that the appellant has falsely been implicated, since, the name of the appellant is there in the diary which was recovered from the spot by the police where huge amount of arms and ammunitions had been recovered alongwith a diary. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor based upon the aforesaid ground has submitted that it is not a case where the instant appeal is fit to be allowed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone across the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court in the impugned order as also the case diary including the affidavit in objection filed on behalf of the State. 8. The basis of implication of the appellant as would appear from the material available on record is the reference of his name made in the diary said to have been recovered by the police from the place wherefrom the large number of arms and ammunitions is alleged to have been recovered. 9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has although made reference of the said diary but save and except the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not brought any incriminating material against the appellant in course of investigation, since, there is no reference to that effect in the entire case diary. Although the ground of the pending four criminal cases have been taken apart from the present one but as would appear from the affidavit filed on behalf of the State that out of four pending cases in two pending cases the appellant has been acquitted i.e. in Mahuwatand P.S. Case No. 66 of 2011 and Gomia P.S. Case No. 59 of 2010 and to that effect the copy of the judgement has also been shown to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and further in two other cases i.e. Gomia P.S. Case No. 129 of 2009 and Gomia P.S. Case No.40 of 2016 the charge-sheet has already been submitted. Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 987 of 2023 -3- The charge-sheet since has been submitted and the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 29.03.2023, therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned order needs to be interfered with. 10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.05.2023 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st, Bermo at Tenughat, in B.P. No. 85 of 2023, is hereby quashed and set aside. 11.
Decision
In the result, the instant appeal is allowed. 12. In consequence thereof, the appellant, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st, Bermo at Tenughat, in connection with Mahuwatand P.S. Case No. 25 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 379 of 2015, subject to the conditions that the appellant shall co-operate in the trial and shall not absent himself 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. 13. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will not prejudice the case of the appellant on merit. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) D.S./J.Minj (Navneet Kumar, J.)