Giridih, Jharkhand. The State of Jharkhand v. With
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1896 of 2023 ---------- Ravi Manjhi @ Brajesh @ Niranjan Ji @ Ravi Marandi, aged about 40 years, s/o Ramka Manjhi resident of village-Karma Bahiyar, P.O. and P.S. Dumri, Dist.-Giridih, Jharkhand. The State of Jharkhand Versus With … … Appellant … … Respondent Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 2096 of 2023 ---------- Ravi Manjhi @ Ravi Marandi @ Brajesh @ Niranjan Ji @ Shibu Marandi @ Vishwnath Manjhi @ Shivnath Marandi @ Mukesh Da, aged about 40 years, s/o Ramka Manjhi resident of village-Karma Bahiyar, P.O. and P.S. Dumri, Dist.-Giridih, Jharkhand. The State of Jharkhand Versus ------- … … Appellant … … Respondent
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1896 of 2023: ------- For the Appellant For the Respondent : Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, APP Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 2096 of 2023: For the Appellant For the Respondent : Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate : Mrs. Lily Sahay, APP ---------------------------- ORAL ORDER 05/Dated: 15th February, 2024. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1896 of 2023: 1. The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 04.08.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st Bermo at Tenughat in B.P. No. 124 of 2023, by which the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with Mahuwatand P.S. No. 18 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No.304 of 2015 registered under Section 3/5 of the Explosive Substances Act; under Sections 25(1-A), 26(2), 55 of the Arms Act; under Section 17 of C.L.A. Act and Section 10/13 of the UA(P) Act, has been rejected. 2 2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the day when the alleged occurrence took place showing involvement of the appellant, the appellant was languishing in judicial custody in connection with Dumri P.S. Case No.60 of 2012, i.e., for the period from 24.08.2012, although at paragraph-(v) of the memo it has been referred as 24.06.2012, and remained in custody till 03.04.2017, therefore, it cannot be said that there was involvement of any count of the appellant in connection with the commission of the present offence as per the allegation made in the first information report against the appellant. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that it is a fit case where the impugned order may be interfered with. 4. While on the other hand, Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail considering the imputation so made in the first information report but so far as the ground of custody the day when the occurrence took place is concerned, the same has not been disputed by going through the case diary since there is reference in the case diary. 5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the finding recorded by the learned court in the impugned order rejecting the prayer for regular bail, the case diary and the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. 6. It needs to refer herein that the learned court while considering the prayer for regular bail has gone into the nature of allegation as per the reference made thereof in the first information report but the learned counsel for the appellant has taken the ground that the day when the occurrence took place the appellant was in judicial custody in connection with Dumri P.S. Case No. 60 of 2012 in which he was released from custody on 03.04.2017. 7. This Court, on the basis of the imputation made in the first information report particularly the date of occurrence, is of the view that the appellant was in judicial custody on the aforesaid date of occurrence but as has been alleged in the first information report that the appellant was 3 also accompanying the other accused persons and in course of chasing of the raiding team, the appellant along with other members of the banned organization has fled away from the place of occurrence, but, when the appellant was in judicial custody on the aforesaid date, as such, the aforesaid reference made in the first information report is not having substance. 8. The aforesaid fact has also not been disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 9. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the impugned order needs to be interfered with. 10. Accordingly, the order dated 04.08.2023 passed in B.P. No. 124 of 2023 in connection with Mahuwatand P.S. No. 18 of 2015, is hereby quashed and set aside. 11. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed. 12. 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 J.M. 1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat in connection with Mahuwatand P.S. No. 18 of 2015 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.
Decision
13. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 2096 of 2023: 14. The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 30.10.2023 passed by the learned Vacation Judge(Additional Sessions Judge 1st ) Bermo at Tenughat in B.P. No. 188 of 2023, by which the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with Mahuwatand P.S. No. 25 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No.379 of 2015 registered 4 under Section 3/5 of the Explosive Substance Act; under Sections 25(1- A), 26(2), 35 of the Arms Act and; under Section 17 of C.L.A. Act, has been rejected. 15. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the day when the alleged occurrence took place showing involvement of the appellant, the appellant was languishing in judicial custody in connection with Dumri P.S. Case No.60 of 2012, i.e., for the period from 24.08.2012 and remained in custody till 03.04.2017, therefore, it cannot be said that there was involvement of any count of the appellant in connection with the commission of the present offence as per the allegation made in the first information report against the appellant. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that it is a fit case where the impugned order may be interfered with. 17. While on the other hand, Mrs. Lily Sahay, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail considering the imputation so made in the first information report but so far as the ground of custody the day when the occurrence took place is concerned, the same has not been disputed by going through the case diary since there is reference in the case diary. 18. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the finding recorded by the learned court in the impugned order rejecting the prayer for regular bail, the case diary and the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. 19. It needs to refer herein that the learned court while considering the prayer for regular bail has gone into the nature of allegation as per the reference made thereof in the first information report but the learned counsel for the appellant has taken the ground that the day when the occurrence took place the appellant was in judicial custody in connection with Dumri P.S. Case No. 60 of 2012 in which he was released from custody on 03.04.2017. 20. This Court, on the basis of the imputation made in the first information report particularly the date of occurrence, is of the view that the 5 appellant was in judicial custody on the aforesaid date of occurrence but as has been alleged in the first information report that the appellant was also accompanying the other accused persons and in course of chasing of the raiding team, the appellant along with other members of the banned organization has fled away from the place of occurrence, but, when the appellant was in judicial custody on the aforesaid date, as such, the aforesaid reference made in the first information report is not having substance. 21. The aforesaid fact has also not been disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 22. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the impugned order needs to be interfered with. 23. Accordingly, the order dated 30.10.2023 passed in B.P. No. 188 of 2023 in connection with Mahuwatand P.S. No. 25 of 2015, is hereby quashed and set aside. 24. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed. 25. 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 J.M. 1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat in connection with Mahuwatand P.S. No. 25 of 2015 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. 26. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Saurabh/- (Arun Kumar Rai, J.)