Mahendra Mahto, aged about 35 years, son of Birsa Mahto @ Jaglal Mahto, resident v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.1832 of 2023 ----- Mahendra Mahto, aged about 35 years, son of Birsa Mahto @ Jaglal Mahto, resident of village-Baltharwa,P.O. & P.S.- Jageshwar Bihar, District-Bokaro. … … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent ------- CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ------- For the Appellant For the Respondent : Ms. Pinki Kumari, Advocate : Ms. Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P. Order No. 05/Dated 21st February, 2024 ------ 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dated 16.09.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Camp Court, Tenughat in Misc. Cri. Application No.1026 of 2023 whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with Mahuatand P.S. Case No.66 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. Case No.950 of 2011(S) registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 332, 326, 307, 379 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act, Section 3/5 of Explosive Substances Act, Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act and Section 10/13 of the U.A.P. Act, has been rejected. 2. It has been submitted that F.I.R. is against 36 persons levelling therein the vague and omnibus allegation. 3. It has further been submitted that there is no recovery from the physical or conscious possession of the 2 appellant but even then he is languishing in judicial custody since 03.03.2023. 4. It has further been contended that although the prayer for regular bail of the appellant was rejected by the coordinate Bench vide order dated 31.05.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.843 of 2023 but the same was rejected merely on the ground that there was no sufficient custody since the appellant had surrendered on 03.03.2023. 5. It has been submitted that since the appellant had surrendered on 03.03.2023, now it is almost a year and hence again the prayer for bail has been renewed. 6. It has further been contended that identically placed accused persons namely Naresh Manjhi has been granted bail vide order dated 08.05.2015 passed in B.A. No.1361 of 2015 and Sanichar Mahto @ Suresh Mahto has been granted bail vide order dated 29.07.2015 in B.A. No.4544 of 2015 and other similarly situated accused persons have also been granted bail as would appear from the orders appended as Annexure-3 series. 7. It has been contended that the co-accused persons who have been granted the benefit of regular bail as per Annexure-3 series, are having more criminal antecedents in comparison to the present appellant. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, submits that it is a fit case where the appellant may be directed to be released on bail by showing interference with the order 3 refusing the bail vide order dated 16.09.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Camp Court, Tenughat in Misc. Cri. Application No.1026 of 2023. 9.
Legal Reasoning
While on the other hand, Ms. Kumari Rashmi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the State has also not disputed the fact regarding criminal antecedents of the appellant but, she is fair enough to submit that the co- accused, namely, Naresh Manjhi, Sanichar Mahto @ Suresh Mahto and other identically placed co-accused persons who are having more criminal antecedents in comparison to the present appellant, have already been directed to be released on bail. 11. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties, gone across the finding recorded in the impugned order, case diary and the counter affidavit filed in opposition. 12. This Court, at the outset, needs to refer herein that the prayer for grant of regular bail was rejected by this court vide order dated 31.05.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.843 of 2023, which has been appended as annexure-2. 13. It is evident from the aforesaid order that this Court has rejected the prayer for bail by assigning the reason that the appellant had surrendered only on 03.03.2023. 14. It further appears from Annexure-3 Series which are orders passed by this Court although by learned Single Judge 4 with respect to identically placed co-accused persons, namely, Naresh Manjhi, Sanichar Mahto @ Suresh Mahto, Dwarika Mahto, Sona Mahto @ Sonwa Mahto, Jaleshwar Mahto, Manki Mahto @ Manki, Birsa Manjhi and Pravil Da @ Phulchand Soren @ Pravil Manjhi, directing them to be released on bail. 15. This Court has also considered the fact that the appellant has got four (04) criminal antecedents but as has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the pending criminal antecedents against the co-accused persons who have been directed to be released on bail is more in number in comparison to that of the present appellant. 16. Further, the appellant since has remained in custody for about one year and, as such, this Court is of the view, after taking into consideration the fact that some identically placed co-accused persons have already been directed to be released on bail, therefore, the impugned order needs interference. 17. Accordingly order dated 16.09.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Camp Court, Tenughat in Misc. Cri. Application No.1026 of 2023, is hereby quashed and set aside. 18. In consequence thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed. 19. In consequence thereof, the appellant, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of 5 Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Camp Court, Tenughat in connection with Mahuatand P.S. Case No.66 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. Case No.950 of 2011(S), 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. Subject to further condition that one of the bailors should be the father/near relative of the appellant. In failure, the learned trial court shall have liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law so that trial be not hindered. 20.
Decision
The instant criminal appeal stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Birendra/