Uday Ganjhu …. … v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
1 Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1181/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1181 of 2023 ------ Uday Ganjhu …. …. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR ------ For the Appellant For the State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Abhay Kr. Chaturvedy, Advocate Mr. Amit Kr. Choubey, Advocate : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, APP ------ 07/Dated: 30.11.2023 1. The instant appeal preferred under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is directed against the order dated 01.06.2023 passed in B.P. No.227 of 2023 by the Addl. Sessions Judge-III, Latehar in connection with Balumath P.S. Case No.160 of 2019, corresponding to G.R. Case No.586 of 2019 registered under Section 384, 385, 386 of the IPC, Section 25(1-A)/26(2)/35 of the Arms Act Section 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act and Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been rejected. 2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the appellant is not named in the F.I.R, rather, his name has come on the basis of confession made by one Mahabir Ganjhu. 3. It has also been contended that there is no recovery from the physical possession of the appellant of any incriminating material/article and no victim has come forward to allege that he has ever demanded the levy. 2 Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1181/2023 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the basis of implication of the appellant in this case is the confession made by one co-accused, namely, Mahabir Ganjhu, who has been directed to be released on bail by this Court vide order dated 06.07.2020 passed in B.A. No.3723 of 2020. 5. It has further been contended that identically placed co-accused persons, namely, Parmeshwar Oraon, Ranjeet Ganjhu, Prabhu Ganjhu and Rakesh Yadav have also been directed to be released on bail by this Court vide order dated 01.07.2020, 06.07.2020, 03.12.2019 and 04.03.2021 passed in B.A. No.3588 of 2020, B.A. No.3723 of 2020, B.A. No.10817 of 2019 and B.A.2323 of 2021 respectively. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid premise, has submitted that the order passed by the learned Court in view of the aforesaid submission, needs to be interfered with. 7. While, on the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the submission. 8. The contention has been made based upon the averment made in the case diary as also the counter affidavit. 9. Although, it has not been disputed that the basis of implication of the appellant is the confession made by one Mahabir Ganjhu who has directed to be released on bail by this Court vide order dated 06.07.2020 passed in B.A. No.3723 of 2020. 10. But, opposition has been made by referring to the order dated 06.07.2020, which is on record that there is no consideration of criminal antecedent therein. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, in response thereto, 3 Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1181/2023 has submitted by referring to the paragraph 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the case diary that the details of the criminal antecedent against the co-accused persons, who have been directed to be released on bail, i.e., Ranjeet Ganjhu, Parmeshwar Oraon, Mahabir Ganju, Prabhu Ganjhu and Rakesh Yadav, are also there. 12. Hence, the case of the appellant is exactly similar to that of the case of the co-accused persons and as such, the opposition so made on behalf of the State is not tenable. 13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by the learned Court in the impugned order as also gone through the case diary and the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. 14. It is the admitted case as would be evident from the F.I.R and the case diary as also the counter affidavit filed in opposition that the appellant is not named in the F.I.R, rather, his name has transpired on the basis of confession made by one Mahabir Ganjhu. 15. It has further been admitted that Mahabir Ganjhu, has already been directed to be released on bail by this Court vide order dated 06.07.2020 passed in B.A. No.3723 of 2020. Further, the other co- accused persons, namely, Parmeshwar Oraon, Ranjeet Ganjhu, Prabhu Ganjhu and Rakesh Yadav have also been directed to be released on bail by this Court vide order dated 01.07.2020, 06.07.2020, 03.12.2019 and 04.03.2021 passed in B.A. No.3588 of 2020, B.A. No.3723 of 2020, B.A. No.10817 of 2019 and B.A.2323 of 2021 respectively. 16. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, however, has seriously 4 Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1181/2023 objected regarding the parity of these orders, which have been passed in favour of the co-accused persons including the co-accused person, namely, Mahabir Ganjhu on whose confession the name of the appellant has come in the F.I.R. since there is no reference of the antecedent in the aforesaid order. 17. We, in order to examine the aforesaid fact, have considered the paragraphs which has been referred by the learned counsel for the appellant as available in the case diary, i.e., paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 9, wherefrom, we have found that against the co-accused person, namely Mahabir Ganjhu, on whose statement the name of the appellant has come in the F.I.R. as also having 5 criminal antecedents as would appear from paragraph 6 of the case diary. 18. It would be evident from paragraph-7 of the case diary which is about the reference of antecedent of Ranjeet Ganjhu against whom also, three criminal antecedents are there. Likewise, Prabhu Ganjhu who has been directed to be released on bail vide order dated 03.12.2019 passed in B.A. No.10817 of 2019, against whom also, three criminal antecedents are there, as would be evident from paragraph-8 of the case diary. 19. This Court, in view of the aforesaid material available in the case diary is of the view that the basis of opposition so made regarding the applicability of these orders passed by this Court, as referred above, is not sustainable. 20. Since, the co-accused person, namely, Mahabir Ganjhu, on whose confession, the name of the appellant has come in the F.I.R. and other co-accused persons have also been directed to be released on 5 Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1181/2023 bail as also the case is committed and now it is stage of framing of charge and the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 18.01.2023, therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned order needs to be interfered with. 21. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 01.06.2023 passed in B.P. No.227 of 2023 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-III, Latehar, is hereby quashed and set aside. 22. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed. 23. 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar, in connection with Balumath P.S. Case No.160 of 2019, corresponding to G.R. Case No.586 of 2019, 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.
Decision
24. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Navneet Kumar, J.) Rohit/-