Sukhlal Leyangi v. The State of Jharkhand
Case at a glance
- Bench
- SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Outcome
Allowed
In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed
Provisions considered
- N.I.A. Act, 2008 s. 21(5)
- National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 s. 21(4)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 420, 489A, 489B, 489C
Key paragraphs
- Para 1212. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 31.07.2024 passed in S.T. No. 295 of 2023 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, is hereby, quashed and set aside. 13.
- Para 1616. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit/AKT 3
Judgment
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Appellant For the Respondent : Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, Advocate : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, Special P.P. Order No.06 / Dated : 25.03.2025 I.A. No. 2904 of 2025 ------
The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 21(5) of the N.I.A. Act for condonation of delay of 34 days which has occurred in filing the instant appeal. 2.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Considering the reasons assigned in the interlocutory application and taking into consideration the purport of Section 21(5) of the N.I.A. Act, 2008, the delay of 34 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 2904 of 2025 stands allowed. Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 302 of 2025
The instant appeal, filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated
31.07.2024 passed in S.T. No. 295 of 2023 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 116 of 2022 (G.R. No. 507 of 2022), registered under Sections 489A, 489B, 489C and 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, wherein the prayer for regular bail of the appellant, has been rejected.
It has been contended on behalf of appellant that the appellant is absolutely innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant case. The 1 name of the appellant has come up on the basis of statement made by co- accused- Avinash Nayak.
It has further been contended that no incriminating article has been recovered from the physical and conscious possession of the appellant and the appellant has no concern with the seized counterfeit notes.
It has also been contended that the identically placed co-accused persons, namely, Lokesh Kumar, Sidheshwar Kr. Singh @ Sidheshwar Singh and Avinash Nayak have been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.12.2022 passed in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1244 of
2022.
While on the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. However, he is fair enough to admit the fact that the case of the aforesaid co- accused persons as referred above, who have already been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, are identically placed to that of the case of the present appellant.
After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that identically placed co-accused persons namely, Lokesh Kumar, Sidheshwar Kr. Singh @ Sidheshwar Singh and Avinash Nayak, have been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.10.2022 passed in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1244 of 2022, therefore, there is no reason to take distinct view, so far as the case of the present appellant is concerned.
Considering the aforesaid fact, this Court is of the view that the impugned order needs to be interfered with.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 31.07.2024 passed in S.T. No. 295 of 2023 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, is hereby, quashed and set aside. 13.
Operative part
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.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in 2 connection with S.T. No. 295 of 2023 arising out of Muffasil P. S. Case No. 116 of 2022 (G.R. No. 507 of 2022), 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 and further that one of the bailors should be close relatives of the appellant, which is to be accompanied by affidavit justifying that such bailor is close relatives of the appellant.
It is made clear that any observation(s) made hereinabove is only for the purpose of consideration of bail having no bearing with the trial.
Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit/AKT 3
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
N.I.A. Act, 2008 — s. 21(5); National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 — s. 21(4); Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 420, 489A, 489B, 489C.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.