IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.1035 of 2024 -----
Jitendra Kumar, aged about 30 years, s/o Pramod Kumar, r/o Lakhi Sarai, Vill-Mahisawna, PO & PS-Tetarhat, Dist.-Lakhi Sarai, State-Bihar
… … Appellant Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
-------
For the Appellant : Ms. Ruchi Mukti, Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P. ------
Order No.4/Dated: 5th September, 2024 I.A. No.8426 of 2024
The instant interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 21(5) of the N.I.A. Act for condoning the delay of 36 days in preferring the instant appeal.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Considering the reason assigned in the interlocutory application and taking into consideration the purport of Section 21(5) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, the delay of 36 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned.
4. Accordingly, I.A. No.8426 of 2024 stands allowed.
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.1035 of 2024
5. The instant appeal under section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 has been directed against the order dated 30thApril 2024 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-1st, Bokaro in Misc. Criminal Application No.382 of 2024 whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with S.T Case No.124 of 2024 arising out of Sector 12 P.S. Case No.9 of 2024
1
registered for the offence under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 489(B), 489(C), 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 66(D) of the I.T. Act, has been rejected.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that it is a case where the appellant has falsely been implicated.
7. The submission has also been made that no case has been made out against the appellant because nothing incriminating has been recovered and seized from his conscious possession. It has further been submitted that the name of the appellant came in the alleged crime merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises and there is no specific allegation against him.
8. The further submission has been made that the co-accused, namely, Praveen Kumar has been granted bail in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.575 of 2024, Nivash Kumar has been granted bail in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.419 of 2024, Sandeep Kumar has been granted bail in Cr. Appeal(DB) No.417 of 2024, Chandan Kumar @ Manish Kumar has been granted bail in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.646 of 2024 and Piyush Parasar @ Piyush Prasar and Dilkhush Kumar have been granted bail in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.749 of 2024 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. It has further been submitted that the appellant is in custody since 15thJanuary
2024.
9. Based on the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that since the case of the appellant is based on similar footing as that of the other co-accused persons, as such, impugned order may be interfered with.
2
10. While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the appellant has apprehended on the spot with other accused persons by the police.
11. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across the impugned order rejecting the prayer for regular bail of the appellant.
12. It appears from the materials available on record that the main allegation is against one Sumit Kumar who is said to be the master mind of the alleged crime.
13. This Court, on consideration of the fact that the co-accused, against whom there are similar allegations, have been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, is of the view that the impugned order needs to be interfered with.
14. Accordingly, the order dated 30thApril 2024 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-1st, Bokaro in Misc. Criminal Application No.382 of 2024 in connection with S.T Case No.124 of 2024 arising out of Sector 12 P.S. Case No.9 of 2024, is, hereby, quashed and set aside.
15. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.
16. 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 District and Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Bokaro in connection with S.T Case No.124 of 2024 arising out of Sector 12 P.S. Case No.9 of 2024, subject to the conditions that the appellant shall co- operate in the trial and shall not absent himself on the date fixed without
3
any cogent cause and shall not commit offence of the like nature. In failure, the learned trial court shall have liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law so that trial be not hindered.
17. I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Sudhir
4