The High Court
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1010 of 2022 ---------- Selay Sundi aged about 40 years, son of Turam Sundi resident of village- Kuida Tola-Kundruburu, P.O. Kundruburu, P.S. Goilkera, Distt.- Chaibasa, West Singhbhum(Jharkhand) The State of Jharkhand Versus ------- … … Appellant … … Respondent
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA For the Appellant For the Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Kr. Mishra, Advocate : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, APP ---------------------------- ------- ORAL ORDER 09/Dated: 20th February, 2024 1. The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 08.07.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in B.P. No. 288 of 2022, by which the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with Sonua P.S. Case No. 38 of 2020 corresponding to GR No. 121 of 2021 registered under Section 25(1-A), 25(1-B)a, 26, 35 of Arms Act and under Section 17 of CLA Act and under Sections 10 and 13 of UAP Act, has been rejected. 2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the appellant was not apprehended from the spot and there is no recovery from his physical or conscious possession of any incriminating article. 3. It has further been contended by referring to the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 15.03.2021 in B.A. No. 2786 of 2021, whereby and whereunder, the co-accused person who has been apprehended from the spot and is having criminal antecedent also but taking into consideration the period of custody he has been released on bail, hence, learned counsel for the appellant has sought for an order on the ground of parity with Rando Boipai @ Kranti, the petitioner of B.A. No. 2786 of 2021. 4. Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of 2 regular bail. The ground has been taken by referring to the nature of allegation as available in the FIR and the impugned order including the case diary. 5. It has been contended that it is a case where the appellant has been implicated on the basis of confession of the co-accused person and as such, it is not a fit case to interfere with the impugned order. 6. It has been submitted that against the appellant including the present case, altogether four cases are there. 7. In response to the same, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that against Rando Boipai @ Kranti, the petitioner of B.A. No. 2786 of 2021, altogether seven criminal antecedents were there but taking into consideration the period of custody, he has been released on bail. Herein, the appellant is in custody since 07.12.2020, therefore, the prayer for grant of bail is mainly on the ground of parity. 8. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone across the finding recorded by the learned court in the impugned order while considering the prayer for regular bail. 9. The appellant has taken the ground of parity with one Rando Boipai @ Kranti, the petitioner of B.A. No. 2786 of 2021 for the purpose of showing interference so that the appellant may be released from judicial custody. 10. This Court has proceeded to examine the factual aspect based upon which Rando Boipai @ Kranti, the petitioner of B.A. No. 2786 of 2021 has been directed to be released on bail by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 11. It appears from the aforesaid order that Rando Boipai @ Kranti was having seven criminal antecedent but considering the period of custody since he was in custody since 19.09.2020, he was directed to be released from judicial custody. Herein, the appellant is having four criminal antecedent and is languishing in judicial custody since 07.12.2020, therefore, this Court is of the view that the principle of parity needs to be applied herein with 3 the case of Rando Boipai @ Kranti, the petitioner of B.A. No. 2786 of 2021. 12. Perhaps the aforesaid issue has not been raised before the learned court, therefore, there is no reasoning to that effect while considering the prayer for regular bail as would be evident from the order impugned but the aforesaid fact has been taken before this Court and the same has not factually been disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State, therefore, even though the aforesaid ground was not taken before the learned court, it would not be just and proper for this Court to not consider the same for the purpose of interfering with the impugned order on the ground of parity. 13. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case the order dated 08.07.2022 passed in B.P. No. 288 of 2022 in connection with Sonua P.S. Case No. 38 of 2020 corresponding to GR No. 121 of 2021, is hereby quashed and set aside. 14. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed. 15. 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 Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Porahat at Chaibasa in connection with Sonua P.S. Case No. 38 of 2020 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.
Decision
16. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Saurabh/- (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)