Jharkhand High Court
Akhtar Ansari @ Akhtar Mian vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 January, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1413 of 2022
---------
1. Akhtar Ansari @ Akhtar Mian, aged about 37 years, S/o Hatim Ansari, R/o-Vill-Puran Bhelwa, P.O.-Katoria, P.S.-Katoria, District-Banka, Bihar
2. Mobarak Ansari @ Mubarak Ansari @ Fudka Mian @ Nunwa Mian, aged about 51 years S/o Jibrail Ansari, R/o-Vill-Bhorisimar, P.O.-Katoria, P.S.-
Katoria, District-Banka, Bihar
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
----------
For the Appellants : Mr. Anand Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, A.P.P.
-----------
th
06/Dated: 10 January, 2024
1. The instant criminal appeal has been filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dated 10.12.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Deoghar in Anticipatory Bail Petition No. 957 of 2021, whereby and whereunder the prayer for pre-arrest bail in connection with Mohanpur P.S. Case No.221 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No.850 of 2000 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452 and 302 of Indian Penal Code, under Section 25(1-b)/26 of Arms Act and under Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act; has been rejected.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellants that the appellants have falsely been implicated in this case, there is nothing save and except the confessional statement of one Shahid Ansari. It has been contended that the said Sahid Ansari has been acquitted from criminal charges, who is accused in the aforesaid criminal case, as such, it is a fit case where the appellants are fit to be granted the benefits of anticipatory bail.
3. While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has vehemently opposed prayer for pre-arrest bail of the appellants on the ground that the case is of the year 2000 but the appellants have not appeared either before the Investigating Agency or before the learned Trial Court by offering their appearance so as to co-operate in the investigation and the trial.
24. It is further contended that the concerned court has secured the appearance of the appellants on basis of an application being made on behalf of Investigating Agency the process under sections 82 and 83 of Cr.PC were taken on 14.02.2001 and 13.07.2001 and 14.07.2001 respectively. Thereafter, they have been declared to be permanent absconders and charge-sheet has been submitted against them and the trial is proceeded. The contention has been made by referring the conduct of the appellants that due to their non-cooperation, the trial of the year 2000 is lying pending before concerned Trial Court.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that after process taken under sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C., the subsequent processes have again been issued under sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C in the year 2005 and subsequently again process was issued under sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C on 16.03.2017 and 09.08.2017 respectively, which has been assailed by filing a petition under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure being Cr.M.P. No.3450 of 2019 wherein the aforesaid orders have been quashed and set aside with direction upon the learned Trial Court to proceed afresh accordingly as per law.
6. The contention has been raised that the ground which has been taken for issuance of processes under sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. are not in existence vide order dated 03.02.2020 passed in Cr.M.P. No.3450 of 2019, therefore, it is a fit case where the benefit of pre-arrest bail is to be granted to the appellants.
7. Heard the learned counsels of both parties, perused the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, and the affidavit-in-objection.
8. Admittedly, it appears from the record that the appellants are seeking prayer for pre-arrest bail in a case registered in the year 2000 being Mohanpur P.S. Case No.221 of 2000 instituted on 23.11.2000. It is also admitted facts that the appellants have not appeared before the Investigating Officer and have also not been arrested, therefore, the process under sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. were taken, which was also executed on 14.02.2001 so far the process under sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C are concerned were obtained on 15.03.2001 which is evident from paras 8 and 9 of the counter affidavit.
9. It is further admitted fact that after issuance of notices under sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C, the appellants have been declared as an absconder and the trial has been proceeded explicitly. So far as, the other remaining co-accused persons 3 are concerned, one Shahid Ansari, who has been acquitted and the ground of his acquittal has been taken herein for the purpose of pre-arrest bail.
10. The law is well settled that the ground of acquittal is not allowed to be taken for the purpose of grant of either regular bail or the pre-arrest bail, reason being that a person has been acquitted depends upon the testimony which the learned trial Court has taken into consideration to acquit the person convicted but the testimony which has been led against the person who has been acquitted, cannot have any impact in a case seeking benefit of regular or pre-arrest bail by the co-accused person, otherwise, if the testimony of the person who has been acquitted will be taken note while considering the prayer pre-arrest bail then at the stage of such consideration, the person concerned will be said to be acquitted, which will be highly prejudiced to the interest of the trial.
11. It further appears that subsequent to process under sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. dated 25.07.2005, again a process was issued in the year 2017 i.e. on 16.03.2017 and 09.08.2017 and the permanent warrant of arrest was issued on 04.04.2018 and the same have been challenged by filing a petition under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure being Cr.M.P. No.3450 of 2019.
12. Learned Single Judge of this Court has quashed the same on the ground that procedure as laid down under sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C has not been adhered with a direction to learned trial court to proceed afresh accordingly. The aforesaid ground to set aside the process issued under sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C has been emphasized while pressing this anticipatory bail application but even though the fresh process issued under sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C have been quashed by learned Single Judge of this Court but the processes issued in the year 2001 under sections 82 and 83 remained in force upon which the appellants have already been declared absconder.
13. This Court considering the conduct of the appellants as referred hereinabove, is of the view that it is not a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail to the appellants.
14. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) pappu/-