Rajiv Khan @ Rajiv Sk. @ Rajib Khan @ Sk vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 February, 2024

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Rajiv Khan @ Rajiv Sk. @ Rajib Khan @ Sk vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 February, 2024

1. The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 13.09.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pakur in B.P. No. 207 of 2023, by which the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with Maheshpur (Raddipur O.P.) P.S. Case no. 205 of 2022 registered under Rule 4, 54 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules; under Section 4, 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act and under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, has been rejected.

2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case where the appellant has falsely been implicated merely because one Tractor bearing registration no.WB-47-1791 which is owned by the appellant has been recovered from the place of occurrence loaded with boulder and stone material and there is no recovery of any explosive substance said to attract the provision of Section 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act.

3. It has further been submitted that the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 29.08.2023 as also the charge sheet has also been submitted.

4. Submission has also been made that there is no criminal antecedent against the appellant and in that view of the matter, the present appeal has been filed since the learned court while considering the prayer for regular bail has not considered all these aspects of the matter.

5. While on the other hand, Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail.

6. It has been contended that the Tractor which was loaded with boulder and mining products was found to be in the name of the appellant, hence, it is incorrect on the part of the appellant to take the ground that there is no complicity of the appellant in the commission of offence.

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that since the learned court has rejected the prayer for bail by taking into consideration the fact that the Tractor bearing Registration No,WB-47-1791 is owned by the appellant as also on the place of occurrence, a Kepressure machine, JCB Poklen and explosive, neogel company 18 pieces, diesel two litres, 60 pieces of detonators and a bundle of loose wire were seized from the spot, therefore, the impugned order may not be interfered with.

8. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by the learned court while considering the prayer for regular bail, the case diary as also the affidavit-in-objection.

9. At the outset, it needs to be referred herein, that this Court had called for the status report wherefrom it is evident that the charge sheet has been submitted as also the case has also been committed.

10. So far as the other fact as per the material available on record is concerned, on earlier occasion, the appellant had filed anticipatory bail application but the same was dismissed vide order dated 26.04.2023 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.178 of 2023 against which the appellant moved before the Hon'ble Apex Court whereby and whereunder, the Hon'ble Apex Court has rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail by declining to interfere with the order dated 26.04.2023 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.178 of 2023, however, with the observation that the appellant, if surrenders before the Court, the bail application will be considered expeditiously.

11. The appellant, in view of the aforesaid order, has surrendered before the Court on 29.08.2023 and since then he is languishing in judicial custody.

12. So far as the issue on merit is concerned, as would be evident from the case diary and the FIR which is admitted case of the prosecution also that one Tractor loaded with boulder and mining products has been found in the name of the appellant. As per the allegation, a Kepressure machine, JCB Poklen and explosive, neogel company 18 pieces, diesel two litres, 60 pieces of detonators and a bundle of loose wire have also been recovered from the spot but it is not the case of the prosecution that all the material belongs to the appellant, save and except, the Tractor.

13. This Court, considering the fact that the appellant has already remained in custody for about six months and is having no criminal antecedents as also the charge sheet has been submitted, is of the view that the impugned order needs to be interfered with.

14. Accordingly, the order dated 13.09.2023 passed in B.P. No. 207 of 2023 in connection with Maheshpur (Raddipur O.P.) P.S. Case no. 205 of 2022, 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur in connection with Maheshpur (Raddipur O.P.) P.S. Case no. 205 of 2022 subject to the condition that the appellant will cooperate in the trial and shall appear on each and every date before the learned trial court, failing which, the learned trial court is at liberty to take appropriate course in accordance with law and; further subject to the condition that one of the bailors should be the father of the appellant and in case of his father being no more, a close relative of the appellant, which is to be accompanied by affidavit justifying that such bailor is close relative of the appellant.

17. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Saurabh/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court