Jharkhand High Court
Sanjeet Singh @ Ajay Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 30 September, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 951 of 2024
---------
Sanjeet Singh @ Ajay Kumar Singh, aged about 25 years, son of Ashok Singh, resident of Tetulmari Gaya Bridge, P.O. Sijua, P.S. Tetulmari, District Dhanbad.
... ... 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. Parambir Singh Bajaj, Advocate Mr. Suraj Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, APP
-----------
th 05/Dated: 30 September, 2024
1. The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 28.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Dhanbad in A.B.P. No. 769 of 2024, by which the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the appellant in connection with Katras (East Basuria O.P.) P.S. Case No. 222 of 2020 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 506, 504, 307, 353, 427 of IPC and under Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26, 27, 35 of Arms Act and under Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act, has been rejected.
2. It has been contended that the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case only on general and omnibus allegation as also the appellant was not even present at the place of occurrence and no material/evidence has come regarding the complicity of the appellant as also no incriminating material has been recovered from his possession.
3. It has also been contended that the informant of this case named 18 persons with their parentage, age and address and other 100-150 persons in the FIR and the appellant was never a member of the alleged assembly but his name has been included in the said case.
14. It has also been contended that co-accused persons, namely, Sony Saw and; Vishal Kumar Sharma, Sanjay Paul @ Sanjay Pal, Baidhyanath Singh, Gayasuddin Ansari and Md. Kamal have been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail vide orders dated 04.10.2021 and 27.07.2021 passed in A.B.A. No. 7415 of 2021 and A.B.A. No. 4613 of 2021 respectively.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid premise, has submitted that the instant appeal also deserves to be allowed.
6. While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the appellant is having criminal antecedents and is also named in the FIR and there is seizure of live bullets and live cartridges as well as live bombs and a hockey stick.
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also taken the ground by referring to paragraphs-35 and 36 of the case diary which contains the confessional statement of co-accused Yuvraj Pathak and Ravi Rai, respectively who have stated that the present appellant is the mind behind their involvement in the alleged offence and has also supplied the arms and bullets.
8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the aforesaid premise, has submitted that it if not a fit case where the privilege of anticipatory bail is to be granted in favour of the appellant, as such, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.
9. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of the case diary.
10. This Court, after going through the case diary has found, particularly from paragraph-35 which contains the confessional statement of the co-accused, namely, Yuvraj Pathak who has stated that the appellant was the mind behind their involvement and had supplied the loaded desi pistol and one live bullet which was recovered from him.
2It also appears from paragraph-36 of the case diary which contains the confessional statement of another co-accused, namely, Ravi Rai who has also stated that the appellant was the mind behind their involvement and had supplied the 02 live bullets which was recovered from him.
11. This Court has also taken into consideration that the appellant is having two criminal antecedents of like nature as also the appellant is evading his arrest for the last four years.
12. Considering the aforesaid fact, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail in favour of the appellant by interfering with the impugned order.
13. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Navneet Kumar, J.) Saurabh/-
3