Login
  • Bookmark
  • PDF
  • Share
  • CaseIQ

PREM KUMAR GANJHU ALIAS PRABHAT JEE ALIAS VIRASAT JEE v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Jharkhand High Court
Jan 29, 2025

1 Cr. Appeal (DB) No.82 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Appeal (DB) No.82 of 2025 In

Filing No. Cr. Appeal (DB) No.26368 of 2024

Prem Kumar Ganjhu @ Prabhat Jee @ Virasat Jee, aged about 27 years, son of Chaman Ganjhu @ Chandan Kumar Ganjhu, resident of village Raheya, P.O. Chedra, P.S. - Boriyan, District- Lateher, Jharkhand ..... Appellant

Versus The State of Jharkhand …. Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

For the Appellant : Mr. Shekhar Prasad Gupta, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A. P.P.

----- Order No.4: 29st January 2025 I.A. No.13848 of 2024

At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that this interlocutory application has been filed inadvertently under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in place of 21(5) of the National Investigation Agency Act and prays to allow to correct the same in course of the day.

2. Permission is accorded.

3. Let the same be corrected in course of the day.

4. This interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 26 days in filing the appeal.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. Considering the sufficient cause as has been assigned in the interlocutory application and having no objection on the part of the Respondent State, the delay of 26 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned.

7. Accordingly, I.A. No.13848 of 2024 stands allowed and disposed of.

Cr. Appeal (DB) No.82 of 2025

8. The instant appeal filed, under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 03.09.2024 passed in Misc. Cr. Application No.1199 of 2024, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II Chatra in connection with S.T. Case No.63 of 2024, arising out of Piparwar P. S. Case No. 49 of 2023, registered under Sections 25(1-AA)/25(1-B)a/26/26(ii)/35 of the Arms Act and under Sections 17(i)(ii) of the CLA Act, by which, the prayer for regular bail of the appellant, has been rejected.

1

2 Cr. Appeal (DB) No.82 of 2025

9. It has been contended that no such occurrence, as has been alleged in the FIR, has ever been committed by the appellant and the appellant has been implicated in the present case merely on the basis of false assumption and no material whatsoever has been brought on record to the role and involvement of the appellant except the statement of the informant, and the appellant is in judicial custody since 14.10.2023.

10. Further it has been submitted that co-accused Naresh Kumar Bhokta @ Naresh Kumar Bhogta and Jitendra Kumar Rajak @ Murari have been directed to be released on bail vide order dated 13.05.2024 and 11.09.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 208 of 2024 and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 706 of 2024. Besides that other accused persons namely, Bisu Ganjhu @ Ashok Ganjhu, Shobhit Sharma @ Raja @ Abhishek Jee and Sandeep Lohra @ Balwant Jee @ Sandip Lohra have been directed to be released on bail by this Court vide order dated 27.11.2024, 06.12.2024 and 19.12.2024 in Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos. 856 of 2024, 1469 of 2024 and 1346 of 2024 respectively.

11. Therefore, submission has been made by learned counsel for the appellant that the case of the appellant is on better footing and as such the impugned order requires interference by this Court.

12. While on the other hand, Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, however, he does not dispute the fact that co-accused persons have been directed to be released on bail by this Court as aforesaid.

13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by the learned court in the impugned order.

14. Admittedly, co-accused persons, Naresh Kumar Bhokta @ Naresh Kumar Bhogta and Jitendra Kumar Rajak @ Murari, who were named in the FIR have been directed to be released on bail vide order dated 13.05.2024 and 11.09.2024 in Cr. Appeal No. 208 of 2024 and Cr. Appeal No. 706 of 2024. Besides, other accused persons namely, Bisu Ganjhu @ Ashok Ganjhu and Shobhit Sharma @ Raja @ Abhishek Jee have been directed to be released on bail by this Court vide order dated 27.11.2024 and 06.12.2024 in Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos. 856 of 2024 and 1469 of 2024 respectively.

15. Further, the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 14.10.2023, therefore, this Court is of the view that that there is no reason to take distinct view so far as it relates to the case of present appellant and as such the impugned order requires interference by this Court.

2

3 Cr. Appeal (DB) No.82 of 2025

16. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 03.09.2024 passed in Misc. Cr. Application No.1199 of 2024, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II Chatra in connection with S.T. Case No.63 of 2024, arising out of Piparwar P. S. Case No. 49 of 2023, is hereby quashed and set aside.

17. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.

18. In consequence thereof, the appellant, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II Chatra, in connection with S.T. Case No.63 of 2024 arising out of Piparwar P. S. Case No. 49 of 2023, subject to the conditions that the appellant shall co-operate in the trial and shall not absent himself on the date fixed without any cogent cause; and shall not commit offence of the like nature.

19. In failure, the learned court shall have liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law so that trial be not hindered and further that one of the bailors should be close relative of the appellant, which is to be accompanied by affidavit justifying that such bailor is close relative of the appellant.

20. It is made clear that any observation(s) made hereinabove is only for the purpose of consideration of bail having no bearing with the trial.

21. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Navneet Kumar, J.)

R.Kumar

3