Bhikhan Ganjhu @ Bikhan Jee @ Deepak Ganjhu @ Deepak Kumar v. The State of Jharkhand

--------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the Appellant For the Respondent ---------- : Mr. Sahil, Advocate Mr. Avilash Kumar, Advocate Mr. Saurabh Narayan, Advocate : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, Spl. P.P. ----------- 04/Dated: 26th September, 2024 I.A. No. 6784 of 2024:

The instant interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 14 days occurred in filing the appeal.

Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent- State has vehemently opposed to the delay condonation application.

This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties on the issue of condonation of delay. The reason has been assigned that due to paucity of money, the appeal could not have been filed and since the appellant is in judicial custody, as such, it was difficult for him to manage money for the purpose of incurring the cost in filing the appeal.

The law under Section 21(5) of the NIA Act, 2008 confers power upon the Court to condone the delay maximum up to the period of 90 days.

Considering the same, the delay of 14 days occurred in filing the appeal, is hereby condoned.

With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been heard on merit at this stage.

The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated

09.05.2024 passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (SC/ST), Chatra in Misc. Criminal Application No.667 of 2024, by which the prayer for bail of the appellant in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No. 07/2023, arising out of Tandwa P.S. Case No. 22/2018 registered under Sections 384, 385, 386, 387, 120B of IPC, Sec. 17 (I)(II) of the C.L.A. Act, u/s 16, 17, 20, 23 of UAP Act and u/s 20(B) of the NDPS Act, has been rejected.

It has been contended that the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case and also no incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the appellant.

It has also been contended that the name of the appellant has transpired on the basis of the confessional statement of apprehended co-accused person.

It has also been contended that co-accused persons, namely, Parmeshwar Ganjhu; Ajit Kumar Thakur and; Birbal Ganjhu @ Birbal Ganhu have been directed to be released on bail by this Court vide orders dated 08.12.2022; 16.08.2022 and; 16.02.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1174 of 2022; Criminal Appeal (DB) No.763 of 2022 and; Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1517 of 2022, respectively.

Further submission has been made that the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 10.05.2022 and the charge has also been framed.

While on the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but has not disputed the fact of bail having been granted in favour of co-accused persons. 2

This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 10.05.2022 as also taking into consideration that the co-accused persons, namely, Parmeshwar Ganjhu; Ajit Kumar Thakur and; Birbal Ganjhu @ Birbal Ganhu have been directed to be released on bail by this Court vide orders dated 08.12.2022;

16.08.2022 and; 16.02.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1174 of 2022; Criminal Appeal (DB) No.763 of 2022 and; Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1517 of 2022, respectively and on perusal of the imputation against the appellant and the co-accused persons has found that the imputation is identical, as such, is of the view that there is no reason to take distinct view with respect to the case of the present appellant.

Considering the aforesaid fact, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case where the impugned order needs to be interfered with.

Accordingly, the 09.05.2024 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No.667 of 2024 in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No. 07/2023, is hereby quashed and set aside.

In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.

In consequence thereof, the appellant, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I- cum-Special Judge (SC/ST), Chatra in connection with with N.D.P.S. Case No. 07/2023 subject to the condition that the appellant will cooperate in the trial and shall appear on each and every date before the learned trial court, failing which, the learned trial court is at liberty to take appropriate course in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Navneet Kumar, J.) Saurabh/- 3