The High Court
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 2021 of 2023 ---------- Triloki Mahto @ Netwa @ Netajee, aged about 40 years, son of Late Aghan @ Aghnu Mahto, resident of Village-Chaiyatand, P.O. Chutte, P.S. Chatrochatti, District-Bokaro. The State of Jharkhand Versus ------- … … Appellant … … Respondent
Legal Reasoning
Single Judge of this Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., as such, the same may not be applied for the purpose of considering the order on parity. 11. This Court, in order to appreciate the aforesaid argument, is of the view that what has been contended on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent-State can be said to be acceptable only on the ground that if the case of the appellant is having distinguished fact with the case of Tulsi Mahto. Further, if the distinction can be made by other grounds, even on the ground of criminal antecedent, then also the principle of parity is not to be applied merely the said order has been passed enlarging Tulsi Mahto in exercise of power conferred under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., the same cannot be said to be not applicable reason being that the whether under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. or appellate jurisdiction of the Court is to consider the prayer for bail so that the person concerned may not be put to the face of rigour of unnecessary custody. 3 12. This Court has appreciating the argument based upon the aforesaid angle in order to examine the fact that the case of the appellant is identically placed with the case of Tulsi Mahto and for that reason, the argument upon which the reference has been made by the learned State counsel has been visited by this Court wherefrom it is evident that the allegation against the appellant is that he was seen along with other accused and area commander of the banned organization along with Tulsi Mahto, the co-accused who has been directed to be released on bail by the learned Single Judge. Save and except the presence of the appellant like that of said Tulsi Mahto, there is no other distinguishable fact so far as the present appellant is concerned. 13. It is also admitted fact that the appellant is having no criminal antecedent. 14. This Court taking into consideration the fact that the identically placed co-accused person has already been released on bail vide order dated 14.03.2018 passed in B.A. No. 1258 of 2018, therefore there is no reason to take distinct view with the case of the appellant. 15. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case the order dated 30.09.2023 passed in B.P. No. 172 of 2023 in connection with Chatrochatti P.S. Case No. 13 of 2017, is hereby quashed and set aside. 16. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed. 17. In consequence thereof, the appellant, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat in connection with Chatrochatti P.S. Case No. 13 of 2017 subject to the condition that the appellant will cooperate in the trial and shall appear on each and every date before the learned trial court, failing which, the learned trial court is at liberty to take appropriate course in accordance with law and; further subject to the condition that one of the bailers should be close relative of the appellant, which is to be accompanied by affidavit justifying that such bailer is close relative of the appellant. 4
Arguments
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA For the Appellant For the Respondent ------- : Mr. Pinki Kumari, Advocate : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, APP ---------------------------- ORAL ORDER 05/Dated: 08th February, 2024 1. The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 30.09.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bermo at Tenughat in B.P. No. 172 of 2023, by which the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with Chatrochatti P.S. Case No. 13 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. case No.465 of 2017 registered under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 334, 335, 435, 427 and 506 of IPC, section 17 of CLA Act and sections 10/13/15(A)(2) of UAP Act, has been rejected. 2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case where the appellant has falsely been implicated and the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 16.06.2023. 3. Submission has also been made that one identically placed co-accused person, namely, Tulsi Mahto has been directed to be released on bail by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 14.03.2018 passed in B.A. No. 1258 of 2018, as appended as Annexure-2 to the paperbook. 4. Submission has also been made that the appellant has got no criminal antecedent. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid premise, has submitted that the learned court while considering the prayer for regular 2 bail has not appreciated all these aspects of the matter, therefore, the present appeal. 6. While on the other hand, Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer for regular bail defending the impugned order. 7. It has been submitted by referring to paragraps-8, 9, 11, 12 and 13 of the case diary wherein specific name has been disclosed by the person in whose house the accused persons had gone. 8. Learned counsel for the State in view of the aforesaid ground has submitted that it is not a fit case where the privilege of bail is to be granted, therefore, the instant appeal is fit to be dismissed. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone across the finding recorded by the learned court in the impugned order as also the case diary and the counter affidavit. 10. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the case of the appellant is identically placed with the case of co-accused Tulsi Mahto, however, objection has been raised by the learned State counsel that the said order granting bail to Tulsi Mahto has been passed by the learned
Decision
18. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Saurabh/- (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)