Jharkhand High Court
Kishor Sahu Aged About 40 Years S/O ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 August, 2023
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB). No.923 of 2023
------
Kishor Sahu aged about 40 years S/O Drigpal Sahu R/O Village- Sogra P.O. & P.S.-Sisai District-Gumla (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. Kripa Shankar Nanda, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Satish Prasad, A.P.P.
------
06/Dated: 09.08.2023
1. The instant appeal preferred under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is directed against the order dated 11.05.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gumla in A.B.P. No.201 of 2023 in connection with Sisai P.S. Case No.155 of 2022, registered for the offence under Sections 379/411 of the IPC, Section 21 of Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulations) Act, 1957, Section 54 of the Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004, Section 13 of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 and Section 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for pre-arrest bail of the appellant has been rejected.
2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that no incriminating material has been surfaced as on the date against the appellant. However, one tractor being registration no.JH07G/3260 loaded with stone bolder was intercepted by the District Mining Officer, Gumla on secret information but the driver of 2 the tractor could not be in a position to produce relevant documents in support of transportation of the said bolder.
3. It has been submitted that the aforesaid vehicle being registration no.JH07G/3260 is not owned by the appellant.
4. The further submission has been made that the prayer for pre- arrest of bail of the appellant has been rejected on the basis of merely an allegation that he is the owner of the tractor involved in illegal transportation of illegally excavated stone bolder by explosion but there is no evidence to that effect.
5. The submission has also been made that this Court while hearing the matter was called upon the case diary.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, on the aforesaid premise, has submitted that the impugned order may be interfered with, so that, the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the appellant may be extended.
7. While on the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State of Jharkhand by going through the case diary has submitted that the tractor being registration no.JH07G/3260 belongs to one Deepak Sahu as per the reference to that effect made at paragraph-40 of the case diary.
8. Learned A.P.P. has also taken the ground that the appellant is having criminal antecedent for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC.
9. In response, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that such submission of having criminal antecedent as has 3 been referred by the learned A.P.P. is absolutely incorrect and incomplete, since, the appellant has been acquitted in the aforesaid case, i.e., Sessions Trial Case No.215 of 2014 and certified copy of the same has been placed before this Court as also supplied to the learned A.P.P. for the State.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the finding recorded by the learned Court as also gone through the case diary and affidavit in objection.
11. This Court after going through the impugned order has found that the case of the appellant has not been considered to be fit for grant of pre-arrest bail, since, the appellant has been considered to be a named accused and by taking allegation that he is the owner of the tractor which is involved in illegal transportation of illegal excavated stone bolder by explosion.
12. Learned Court, on the basis of the aforesaid consideration of the factual aspect, has rejected the prayer of pre-arrest bail.
13. This Court in order to verify the aforesaid finding has called upon the case diary as also called upon the State to file affidavit in objection so as to assess as to whether the finding so recorded by the learned Court while rejecting the prayer for anticipatory bail is justified or not?
14. We, after going through the case diary as also the stand inter- alia taken in the affidavit in objection, have not found anywhere that the tractor which was intercepted and found with the bolder, is owned by the appellant, rather, the reference of vehicle bearing registration 4 no.JH07G/3260, as per the investigation, referred at paragraph-40 of the case diary, is owned by one Deepak Sahu.
15. This Court, therefore, failed to understand that from where the finding to the effect that the appellant is the owner of the tractor, as has been recorded in the impugned order. If the aforesaid fact was correct, then the same would have been referred in the case diary by the Investigating Officer but that is not referred.
16. Therefore, the reason for rejecting the pre-arrest bail of the appellant on the ground that the appellant is the owner of the tractor is not based upon fact and in that view of the matter, we are of the view that the aforesaid finding/reasoning for rejecting the pre-arrest bail suffers from infirmity.
17. It needs to refer herein that the specific stand has been taken by the Investigating Officer in the affidavit in objection, by making reference of criminal antecedent.
18. Learned A.P.P. has admitted the fact that the reference regarding the antecedent of the criminal case, which has said to be an antecedent, the appellant has been acquitted vide judgment dated 21.07.2022 passed in Sessions Trial Case No.215 of 2014.
19. But it is very surprising and it is unfortunate that the deponent who has filed the affidavit, has furnished incomplete information, even though, the appellant has been acquitted in the aforesaid case, which we have perused from the certified copy of the order produced by the appellant.
20. This Court has considered the statement so made only to 5 mislead the Court which is not proper on the part of the deponent.
21. Accordingly, the order dated 11.05.2023 passed by the Sessions Judge, Gumla in A.B.P. No.201 of 2023, according to our considered view, requires interference.
22. In consequence thereof, the order dated 11.05.2023 passed by the Sessions Judge, Gumla in A.B.P. No.201 of 2023, is hereby quashed and set aside.
23. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.
24. On consideration of the aforesaid facts, this Court is inclined to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the appellant. The appellant, above named, accordingly, is directed to surrender before the learned court below within 10 days and on his surrender, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gumla in connection with Sisai P.S. Case No.155 of 2022, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
25. Let this order be communicated to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district by cautioning the concerned authority to be cautious in future in filing affidavit before the Court of law.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Navneet Kumar, J.) Rohit/-