(2025:JHHC:10172-DB)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.333 of 2025 ------
Nitai Mandal aged about 56 years son of Bibhuti Mandal resident of village & P.O. Salpatra, P.S. Baliapur, District-Dhanbad
…. …. 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 : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabir Kr. Chatterjee, APP
------ 03/Dated: 03.04.2025 I.A. No.3473 of 2025
1. The instant interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 21(5) of the N.I.A. Act for condoning the delay of 27 days in preferring the instant appeal.
2. 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 27 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned.
3. Accordingly, I.A. No.3473 of 2025 stands allowed.
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.333 of 2025
1. The instant appeal preferred under Section 21(4) of the NIA, Act, 2008 is directed against the order dated 26.11.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dumka in A.B.P. No.465 of 2024, in connection with Jarmundi P.S. Case No.20 of 2024, registered for the offence under Sections 285, 286, 336, 420, 120(B) of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act, whereby and
1
whereunder, the prayer for pre-arrest bail of the appellant has been rejected.
2. As per the allegation, the appellant was a driver of a tanker being vehicle no.WB-76B-0558 and was carrying the mixed oil and as per the appellant, he has gone to the house of his relative and in course thereof, fuel has been stolen, for which, he cannot be held to be liable.
3. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the appellant is absolutely innocent, since, he is having no knowledge about any theft of mixed oil from the said tanker.
4. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the aforesaid fact has not been taken into consideration by the learned Court and as such, it is a fit case where the impugned order needs to be interfered with.
5. While on the other hand, learned APP appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer for pre- arrest bail.
6. It has been contended that the allegation is against the appellant and as per the principle to consider the prayer for anticipatory bail, the case is not falling under the said category and that is the reason, the learned court after taking into consideration the specific allegation against the appellant that he is a driver of tanker where the theft of mixed oil has occurred and if in such circumstances, the prayer for anticipatory bail has been rejected, the order impugned cannot be said to suffer from an error.
2
7. It has further been contended that in the impugned order, it has come that the appellant is habitual offender.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding recorded by the learned court in the impugned order dated 26.11.2024.
9. This Court is dealing with the issue of pre-arrest bail and as such, the principle which is required to be considered while considering the prayer for pre-arrest bail, has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1 that in the matter of anticipatory bail that courts should be guided by factors like the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case.
10. Further, it has been held that the time-tested principles are that no straitjacket formula can be applied for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. The judicial discretion of the Court shall be guided by various relevant factors and largely it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
11. It is evident from the aforesaid ratio that the anticipatory bail is to be considered and granted if no case is made out said to be prima-facie after going through the entire fact, treated to be accepted.
12. Herein, the fact is that the tanker was being given to the appellant in the capacity of driver carrying 4000 liters petrol.
13. It is also admitted case of the appellant that while he was carrying
3
the said tanker by driving the same, he has gone to the residence of one of his relatives and at that time, fuel was stolen through pipe by the third person, as per the appellant.
14. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the fact about the tanker was being given to the appellant in the capacity of driver and theft of petroleum product is also admitted one. However, the petitioner/appellant is shifting his liability.
15. This Court, considering the aforesaid fact, is of the view that since the case of the appellant is not falling under the consideration for grant of pre-arrest bail, and as such, the impugned order requires no interference.
16. In the result, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Rohit/-
4