Kamruddin Mian … v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 2020 of 2023 ---- Kamruddin Mian … … 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 : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Vijay Kumar Roy, Advocate Order No. 05 : Dated 5th February, 2024 -------- 1. The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigating Agency Act, 2008 is directed the order dated 11.10.2023 passed in A.B.P. No. 2017 of 2023 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Giridih in connection with Taratand P.S. Case No. 7 of 2022, registered under Sections 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Giridih whereby and whereunder the prayer for pre-arrest bail of the appellant has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and nothing has been disclosed about his complicity in commission of crime. Submission has been made that as per prosecution version, the police has recovered 42 pieces of Jiletin explosive and 27 pieces of detonator from the plastic bag. Further submission has been made that from the place where the said plastic bag was recovered belongs to one Md. Naushad Alam. It was further found that in the boundary wall of said Md. Naushad - 2 - Alam drilling work through drilling machine (fixed on a tractor) was going on in an under-construction well and near the right side of driver seat of tractor the said plastic bag was recovered containing 42 pieces of Jiletin explosive and 27 pieces of detonator. 3. Argument has been advanced by referring to the impugned order wherein there is no consideration of the plea having been taken by learned counsel for the appellant seeking privilege of pre-arrest bail before the learned court and hence, according to learned counsel for the appellant the impugned order dated 11.10.2023 is cryptic and hence as such not sustainable in the eyes of law. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant on the aforesaid premise has submitted that the impugned order requires interference and is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 5. Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, learned A.P.P. appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer for pre-arrest bail by defending the impugned order. Learned A.P.P submits that the impugned order refers about the relevant paragraphs of case diary and in that view of the matter, the prayer for appellant of pre-arrest bail has been rejected, as such the impugned order may not be interfered with. - 3 - 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by the learned court in the impugned order. 7. The main ground taken apart from the involvement of the petitioner that whatever ground has been taken by the appellant before the concerned Court for consideration of pre- arrest bail there is no reference of any of it and why the prayer for pre-arrest bail has been rejected it is not known if the impugned order will be appreciated. 8. This Court while exercising the power of appeal has been conferred with the power conferred under Section 21(4) of the NIA Act, 2008 since some of the offences are schedule, as per the NIA Act, 2008. The jurisdiction which is to be exercised by the appellate court is to see the legality and propriety of the order, which is under challenge and for judicial scrutiny by the appellate Court. 9. Law is well settled that whatever the decision is to be taken by original forum, if any plea has been taken the same is to be considered by answering the same either way ie.. either by passing the order in favour of concerned party or against the concerned party, then it will be said to be consideration in the eye of law. Consideration always means active consideration of mind. 10. This Court has proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of impugned order by taking into consideration the - 4 - implication as has been made in the first information report wherein admittedly the petitioner is not named in the FIR. Even the ground which has been taken by the appellant before the learned Court no reference as to how and on what basis the appellant has been implicated and why the learned Court has rejected the prayer of pre-arrest bail. 11. It appears from the impugned order that merely because 42 pieces of Jiletin explosive and 27 pieces of detonator from a plastic bag has been recovered from the seat of tractor by which drilling work was going on in half-constructed well of boundary of said Md. Nausad Alam, the petitioner has also been implicated but what is his involvement there is no reference in the impugned order. 12. This Court considering the aforesaid fact as also taking into consideration the fact that there is no reference regarding the criminal antecedent of the appellant, is of the view that the impugned order needs interference. 13. Accordingly, order dated 11.10.2023 passed in A.B.P. No. 2017 of 2023 is hereby quashed and set aside. 14. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed 15. In consequence thereof, this Court directs the appellant, above named, shall surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks and on his surrender, he has been released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- [Ten Thousand] with two sureties of the like amount each to - 5 - the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, Giridih in connection with Taratand P.S. Case No. 7 of 2022, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 16. It is further directed that the appellant shall co-operate in investigation of the matter failing which the investigating agency will be at liberty to file appropriate application before the learned trial Court who shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law for cancellation of bail so as there may not be any hindrance in investigation and further the trial court be at liberty to cancel bail bond of the appellant.
Decision
17. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Alankar/ (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)