Sanjay Kumar Keshri @ Sanjay Kumar Keshari … v. with …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1972 of 2023 ---- Sanjay Kumar Keshri @ Sanjay Kumar Keshari … … Appellant The State of Jharkhand Versus with … … Respondent Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 2102 of 2023 ---- Ramjatan Yadav … … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent with Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 2105 of 2023 ---- Subodh Gupta @ Subodh Kumar Gupta … … Appellant The State of Jharkhand Versus ------- … … Respondent
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI For the Appellant : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate ------ For the Respondent [In Cr. A. 1972/23 & Cr. A. 2102/23] Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, Advocate [In Cr. A. 2105/23] : Mrs. Amrita Kumari, A.P.P [In Cr. A. 1972/23] Mr. Satish Prasad, A.P.P [In Cr. A. 2102/23] Mr. V.S. Sahay, A.P.P [In Cr. A. 2105/23] Order No. 04 : Dated 8th April, 2024 -------- 1. Since all the appeals arise out of the common prosecution case, as such prayer has been made by learned counsel for the parties that as accusation against all the appellants are similar, the matter may be heard together. 2. Considering the said prayer, the matter was directed to be listed together as would be evident from order dated 31st - 1 - January, 2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 2102 of 2023 and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 2105 of 2023. 3. The instant criminal appeals have been preferred on behalf of the appellants under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 for setting aside the order dated 16.10.2023 passed in B.P. No. 543 of 2023 [in Cr. Appeal No. 1972 of 2023]; order dated 16.112023 in B.P. No. 587 of 2023 [in Cr. Appeal No. 2102 of 2023] and order dated 16.11.2023 in B.P. No. 572 of 2023 [in Cr. Appeal No. 2105 of 2023] by the learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa in connection with Bhandariya P.S. Case No. 45 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1062 of 2018 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 323, 324, 379, 435, 427, 386, 504, 506 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code; under Section 27 of the Arms Act; 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and under Sections 38 & 39 of the U.A.P. Act, whereby and whereunder, the appellants prayer for regular bail have been rejected. 4. It has been contended on behalf of the appellants that they are innocent and have has falsely been implicated in this case on the basis of fact that they were dealing with the business of Kendu Leave and in course thereof, the allegation has been leveled that they are involved in the matter of terror funding with the extremists, namely, Mrityunjay Bhuiyan and others. - 2 - 5. It has further been contended that in fact while doing business their Kendu Leaves have been set at fire in the forest by the extremists but without taking into consideration these facts into consideration, these appellants have been implicated in this case along with other accused persons on the pretext that they are involved in money transaction with the MCC, the banned organization. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the appellants of Cr. Appeal No. 1972 of 2023, Cr. Appeal No. 2102 of 2023 and Cr. Appeal No. 2105 of 2023 are in judicial custody since 23.09.2023, 10.10.2023 and 03.10.2023 respectively. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants on the aforesaid premise has submitted that it is a fit case where the appeals are fit to be allowed and appellants may be directed to be released on bail. 8. While on the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand in the respective appeals, has opposed the prayer for bail. The argument has been advanced that the appellants have actively been found to be involved in extremist activities with the members of banned orangization. 9. The ground of criminal antecedent has also been taken stating that against the appellant, namely, Sanjay Kumar - 3 - Keshri @ Sanjay Kumar Keshari there are altogether five criminal antecedents including the present one; against the appellant- Ramjatan Yadav there is one criminal antecedent while against the appellant-Subodh Gupta @ Subodh Kumar Gupta also one criminal antecedent is there. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the aforesaid ground has submitted that the impugned orders require no interference by this Court. 11. In response, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that all the criminal antecedents of minor occurrence under Sections 414, 406 IPC etc. and furthermore, charges have already been framed and the appellants are in custody for about than six months, as such it is a fit case where the appellants may be directed to be released on bail. 12. This Court has considered the submission advanced on behalf of the parties, gone across the finding recorded by learned court while considering the prayer for regular bail as also the case diary and contents of affidavits in objection as also the status of the case. 13. So far as the status of cases are concerned, it appears from the status report that the charge-sheet has already been filed. 14. The Court, after considering the statement so recorded under paragraph 81 of the supplementary case diary, has found therefrom that the appellants appears to be involved in - 4 - business of Kendu leave. It has also come in the case diary that Kendu leave of the appellants have been set at fire by the extremists. 15. This Court, taking into consideration these facts, as also the period of custody i.e., appellants of Cr. Appeal No. 1972 of 2023, Cr. Appeal No. 2102 of 2023 and Cr. Appeal No. 2105 of 2023 are in judicial custody 23.09.2023, 10.10.2023 and 03.10.2023 respectively, is of the view that impugned orders require interference. 16. In view thereof, order dated 16.10.2023 passed in B.P. No. 543 of 2023 [in Cr. Appeal No. 1972 of 2023]; order dated 16.112023 in B.P. No. 587 of 2023 [in Cr. Appeal No. 2102 of 2023] and order dated 16.11.2023 in B.P. No. 572 of 2023 [in Cr. Appeal No. 2105 of 2023] by the learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa in connection with Bhandariya P.S. Case No. 45 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1062 of 2018 are hereby quashed and set aside and in consequence thereof, the appellants deserve to be released on bail. 17. Accordingly, the appellants, named above, are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Garhwa, in connection with Bhandariya P.S. Case No. 45 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No. - 5 - 1062 of 2018, subject to the conditions that the appellants will cooperate in the trial and shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court, failing which, the learned Trial Court will be at liberty to take steps in accordance with law; and further subject to the condition that one of the bailors should be close relative of the appellants, which is to be accompanied by affidavit justifying that such bailors are close relative of the appellants. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Alankar/ (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) - 6 -