Gautam Gope @ Jalwa v. The State of Jharkhand

: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ------ For the Appellant For the State : Mr. Sanjeet Nayak, Advocate : Ms. Vandana Bharti, Spl. P.P. ------ 05/Dated: 25th November, 2024 I.A. No.9665 of 2024

This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 21(5) of the NIA Act for condoning the delay of 29 days in preferring the instant appeal.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Considering the sufficient cause as has been referred in the interlocutory application, the delay of 29 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned.

Accordingly, the I.A. No. 9665 of 2024 stands allowed. Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.960 of 2024

The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 12.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Khunti in MCA No. 97 of 2024, by which the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with Jariyagarh P.S. Case no. 22 of 2023 registered under Sections 25(1-AA), 25(1-A), 25(6), 26, 35 of Arms Act and under Section 17 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, has been rejected.

It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that although on earlier occasion the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 8th January, 2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1319 of 2023 appended as Annexure-I on the ground of recovery of 20 live cartridges as also the petitioner has been said to have six criminal antecedents against him excluding the present one.

It has further been contended that the petitioner is languishing in custody since 31.05.2023. Charges have been framed in the month of January, 2024 but till date, no witnesses have been examined.

It has further been submitted that in the meanwhile one co-accused person namely Prakash Kumar Sahu had been directed to release on bail vide order dated 16.05.2024 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 2008 of 2023.

The further submission has been made that from the co-accused person, namely, Prakash Kumar Sahu, no recovery is there as per the material available on record. But even considering the fact that the 20 live cartridges have been recovered except that there is no allegation for which the appellant is languishing in custody since 18 months approximately in a case where the charges have been framed but none of the witnesses have been examined.

The learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid, has submitted that the impugned order, therefore, needs to be interfered with so that the appellant may come out from the custody.

While on the other hand, Ms. Vandana Bharti, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by referring to the allegation of recovery of 20 live cartridges from the possession of the appellant and based upon the said ground, on earlier occasion the prayer for bail had already been rejected.

This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by the learned court in the impugned order while considering the prayer for bail.

The prayer for regular bail has already been rejected earlier by this Court by not interfering with the order passed by the learned concerned Court vide order dated 8th January, 2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1319 of 2023.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the charge has already been framed in the present case in the month of January, 2024 but as yet no witnesses have been examined and the appellant is languishing in custody since 31.05.2023. Further, the co-accused person, namely Prakash Kumar Sahu has been directed to release on bail vide order dated 16.05.2024 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

This Court considering the facts that the charges have already been framed in the month of January, 2024 and even after lapse of 10 months, no witnesses have been examined and the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 31.05.2023 is of the view that the impugned order needs to be interfered with.

Accordingly, the order dated 12.04.2024 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 97 of 2024 in connection with Jariyagarh P.S. Case no. 22 of 2023, is hereby quashed and set aside.

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 Additional Session Judge-II, Khunti in connection with Jariyagarh P.S. Case no. 22 of 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 and; further subject to the condition that one of the bailors should be the father of the appellant and in case of his father being no more, a close relative of the appellant, which is to be accompanied by affidavit justifying that such bailor is close relative of the appellant.

Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Samarth/