Jharkhand High Court
Balak Ram @ Dilip Ram @ Kabir Ji vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 February, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1902 of 2023
----
Balak Ram @ Dilip Ram @ Kabir Ji ... ... Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent with Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1451 of 2023
----
Ram Parvesh Kumar ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-------
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate [In Cr. A 1902 of 2023] Mr. Altamash Khan, Advocate [In Cr. A 1451 of 2023] For the Respondent : Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, A.P.P [In Cr. A 1902 of 2023] Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, Advocate [In Cr. A 1451 of 2023]
--------
th
Order No. 04 : Dated 7 February, 2024
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1902 of 2023
1. The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 08.08.2023 passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-III, Lohardaga in M.C.A. No.349 of 2023 (S.T. Case No.112 of 2023), by which the prayer for bail of the appellant, in connection with Kuru P.S. Case No. 22 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. No. 195 of 2023 registered under Section 414/34, 120B of IPC and 3/4 of the -2- Explosive Substance Act and under Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act, has been rejected.
2. It has been contended that though the name of the appellant is named in the F.I.R but it appears that his name come in the confessional statement of co-accused, Praveen Oraon, which has been given before the police, which has got no evidentiary value in the eye of law. Further, there is no evidence that the petitioner has assisted or helped in concealment of stolen property and the police has not seized or recovered any incriminating articles from the possession of the appellant nor recovered any stolen property. Further the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 20.02.2023.
3. It has further been submitted the said co-accused- Praveen Oraon, on whose confessional statement the name of the appellant has surfaced has been directed to be released on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.01.2024 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1576 of 2023. It has further submitted that other co-accused, namely, Sunil Kumar Sahu @ Manoj Jee @ Sunil Kumar has been directed to be released on bail vide order dated 04.12.2023 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1291 of 2023.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the learned court while considering the application for bail ought to have considered the aforesaid aspect but the same having not been done, therefore, the instant appeal. -3-
5. While on the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State, referring to counter affidavit, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by taking the ground of six criminal antecedents including the first one. It has been submitted that though the appellant fled away from the place of occurrence but he confessed his guilt in the confessional statement recorded at paragraph 27 of the case diary.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not disputed the fact that co-accused Praveen Oraon, has been directed to be released on bail vide order dated 04.01.2024 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1576 of 2023.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone across the finding recorded by the learned court while dealing with the bail application as also gone through the case diary.
8. Admittedly, there is no recovery from the conscious physical possession of the appellant rather the allegation of recovery of explosive substance is the place nearby the house of the appellant.
9. Furthermore, Praveen Oraon, on whose confessional statement the name of the appellant has surfaced has been directed to be released on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.01.2024 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1576 of 2023. Further the other co-accused, namely, Sunil Kumar Sahu @ Manoj Jee @ Sunil Kumar has been directed -4- to be released on bail vide order dated 04.12.2023 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1291 of 2023.
10. The appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 20.02.2023.
11. Considering the aforesaid fact, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case where the impugned order needs to be interfered with.
12. Accordingly, the 08.08.2023 passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-III, Lohardaga in M.C.A. No.349 of 2023 (S.T. Case No.112 of 2023), is hereby quashed and set aside.
13. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.
14. 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 District and Additional Sessions Judge-III, Lohardaga in connection with Kuru P.S. Case No. 22 of 2023, 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 bailers should be close relative of the appellant, which is to be accompanied by affidavit justifying that such bailer is close relative of the appellant. -5-
15. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of. Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1451 of 2023
16. The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 31.05.2023 passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-III, Lohardaga in B.P. No.90 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. No. 195 of 2023, by which the prayer for bail of the appellant, in connection with Kuru P.S. Case No. 22 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. No. 195 of 2023 registered under Section 414/34, 120B of IPC and 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act and under Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act, has been rejected.
17. It has been contended that though the name of the appellant has come in the confessional statement of co- accused, Praveen Oraon, which has been given before the police, which has got no evidentiary value in the eye of law. Further, there is no evidence that the petitioner has assisted or helped in concealment of stolen property and the police has not seized or recovered any incriminating article from the possession of the appellant nor recovered any stolen property. It has further been submitted that alleged Sulti Bomb was recovered from the house/Bari of Balak Ram and not from the house of this petitioner. The appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 13.02.2023.
-6-
18. It has further been submitted the said co-accused- Praveen Oraon, on whose confessional statement the name of the appellant has surfaced has been directed to be released on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.01.2024 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1576 of 2023. It has further submitted that other co-accused, namely, Sunil Kumar Sahu @ Manoj Jee @ Sunil Kumar has been directed to be released on bail vide order dated 04.12.2023 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1291 of 2023.
19. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the learned court while considering the application for bail ought to have considered the aforesaid aspect but the same having not been done, therefore, the instant appeal.
20. While on the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State, referring to counter affidavit, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by taking the ground of three criminal antecedents excluding the present one. It has been submitted that though the appellant has confessed his guilt as would be evident from paragraph 16 of the case diary.
21. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not disputed the fact that co-accused Praveen Oraon, has been directed to be released on bail vide order dated 04.01.2024 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1576 of 2023.
-7-
22. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone across the finding recorded by the learned court while dealing with the bail application as also gone through the case diary.
23. Admittedly, there is no recovery from physical possession of the appellant rather the allegation of recovery of explosive substance is from the nearby place of other co- accused.
24. Furthermore, Praveen Oraon, on whose confessional statement the name of the appellant has surfaced has been directed to be released on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.01.2024 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1576 of 2023. Further the other co-accused, namely, Sunil Kumar Sahu @ Manoj Jee @ Sunil has been directed to be released on bail vide order dated 04.12.2023 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1291 of 2023.
25. The appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 13.02.2023.
26. Considering the aforesaid fact, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case where the impugned order needs to be interfered with.
27. Accordingly, the 31.05.2023 passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-III, Lohardaga in B.P. No. 90 of 2023, is hereby quashed and set aside.
28. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed. -8-
29. 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 Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Lohardaga in connection with Kuru P.S. Case No. 22 of 2023, 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 bailers should be close relative of the appellant, which is to be accompanied by affidavit justifying that such bailer is close relative of the appellant.
30. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Alankar/