Jharkhand High Court
Charitar Yadav @ Suraj Yadav @ Ramashish ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 January, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 851 of 2023
----
Charitar Yadav @ Suraj Yadav @ Ramashish Yadav @ Angad Jee @ Chalitar Yadav ... ... Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent with Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 854 of 2023
----
Charitar Yadav @ Ramashish Yadav @ Chalitar Yadav ... ... Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-------
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P
--------
th Order No. 05 : Dated 16 January, 2024 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 851 of 2023
1. The instant appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 for setting aside the order dated 29.04.2023 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 519 of 2023 by the learned Sessions Judge, Chatra in connection with Hunterganj P.S. Case No. 180 of 2022 for the offences registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 353, 414, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code; under Section 25(I-A), 26, 35 and 27 of the Arms Act; under Section 3/4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act, under Section 10, 13, 16, 18, 20, 38 and 39 of the UA(P) Act, 1967 whereby and whereunder, the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been rejected. -2-
2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the instant case and only because name of the appellant has been over-heard by the police officers at the time of alleged attack and counter attack between banned organization, MCC (Maosist) and police personnel. It has been contended that save and except this no other evidence has come in course of investigation as would be evident from bare perusal of case diary. Further submission has been made that even trial has not yet commenced and the appellant is in judicial custody since 04.03.2023. Therefore, the learned court while considering the prayer for regular since bail has not considered these aspects of the matter, the impugned order dated 29.04.2023 suffers from error and hence not sustainable in the eye of law.
3. While on the other hand, learned A.P.P appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by defending the impugned order. It has been submitted that the appellant has been found to be active member of the banned organization, M.C.C (Maoist). It has further been submitted that the member of the banned organization is also coming under the fold of penal offence under Section 13 of the UA(P) Act, 1967 for which sanction has been granted by the competent authority as required under Section 45 of the UA(P) Act, 1967. Therefore, even on this ground alone the -3- prayer for regular bail by showing interference with the impugned order is fit to be rejected.
4. It has further been contended that from the place of occurrence several incriminating articles including INSAS Riffle, a black coloured cloth pouch containing 3 loaded INSAS Rifle, a black coloured cloth pouch containing 3 loaded Magazine with 20-20 live cartridges in each magazine, total 170 live cartridges, mobile sets with charger, microchips 13 SIM, 3 KG Cane Bomb, wife and electronic detonators etc. were recovered during search from the place of occurrence, as would be evident paragraph 2 of the case diary.
5. Further submission has been made that against the appellant altogether 11 criminal cases are pending and hence the appellant being history-sheeter the impugned order may not be interfered with otherwise the trial in all the criminal cases will adversely be affected.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone across the finding recorded by learned trial Court while rejecting the prayer for regular bail as available in the impugned order 29.04.2023 as also the case diary and objection in affidavit filed on behalf of the State.
7. It is evident from the material available on record that the name of the appellant has come having been referred by the investigating agency after over-hearing his name at the time when attack and counter attack was going on in -4- between the police party and MCC(Maoist), the banned organization. After having several round of firing the members of MCC people fled away and in course thereof the name of the appellant has been over-heard by the police personnel. The police subsequent thereto reached to the place of occurrence and has found large number of arms and ammunitions, as would be evident from paragraph 2 of the case diary. It is further evident that the police in course of counter attack has fired total 124 rounds of bullet and in course thereof the name of the appellant has been overheard. It has come that many criminal cases of like nature are pending against the appellant and as per the status report most of the cases are at the stage of evidence and some of the cases are at the stage of appearance.
8. This Court considering the fact as per allegation leveled in the FIR that the appellant was found to be the member of banned organization and as per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arup Bhuiyan Vs. State of Assam & Anr. 2023 (8) SCC 745, being a member of the banned organization also attract the penal provision as contained under Section 13 of the U.A.(P) Act, 1967. Further against the appellant many criminal cases of like nature are pending and trial in most of the cases is in progress. In the instant case sanction has been granted as required under Section 45 of the Act, 1967 as such if at this stage the appellant will be -5- directed to be released on bail then the trial in the pending criminal cases will be adversely affected taking into consideration the fact as aforesaid and criminal antecedent of the appellant. Therefore, this Court is of the view that while rejecting the prayer for regular bail, the learned Court has committed no error.
9. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed. Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 854 of 2023
10. The instant appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 for setting aside the order dated 04.05.2023 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 533 of 2023 by the learned Sessions Judge, Chatra in connection with Chatra Sadar P.S. Case No. 390 of 2022 for the offences registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 427, 435, 387 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code; under Section 10/13, of the UA(P) Act, 1967 and under Section 17 of the C.L.A Act whereby and whereunder, the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been rejected.
11. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the instant case on mere suspicion. Further submission has been made no incriminating article has been recovered from the physical possession of the appellant and he is not a member of extremist group. Furthermore, no Test Identification has -6- been made. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 29.04.2023.
12. It has been submitted the learned court while considering the prayer for regular since bail has not considered these aspects of the matter, the impugned order dated 04.05.2023 suffers from error and hence not sustainable in the eye of law.
13. While on the other hand, learned A.P.P appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by defending the impugned order. It has been submitted that the appellant is named in the F.I.R. and has been found to be active member of the banned organization, M.C.C (Maoist). It has further been submitted that the member of the banned organization is also coming under the fold of penal offence under Section 13 of the UA(P) Act, 1967 for which sanction has been granted by the competent authority as required under Section 45 of the UA(P) Act, 1967. Therefore, even on this ground alone the prayer for regular bail by showing interference with the impugned order is fit to be rejected.
14. It has further been contended that allegation against the appellants and other co-accused is that for non-fulfillment of levy they set at ablaze two JCB machines which were carrying out road construction work.
15. Further submission has been made that against the appellant altogether 11 criminal cases are pending and hence -7- the appellant being history-sheeter the impugned order may not be interfered with otherwise the trial in all the criminal cases will adversely be affected.
16. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone across the finding recorded by learned trial Court while rejecting the prayer for regular bail as available in the impugned order 04.05.2023 as also the case diary and objection in affidavit filed on behalf of the State.
17. It is evident from the material available on record that the allegation against the appellant and others are that for non-fulfilment of levy they set at ablaze two JCB machines which were doing road construction work. It has further come during investigation that the petitioner was found to be an active member of MCC(Maoists), the banned organization.
18. It further appears that many criminal cases of like nature are pending against the appellant and as per the status report most of the cases are at the stage of evidence and some of the cases are at the stage of appearance.
19. This Court considering the fact as per allegation leveled in the FIR that the appellant was found to be the member of banned organization and as per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arup Bhuiyan Vs. State of Assam & Anr. 2023 (8) SCC 745, being a member of the banned organization also attract the penal provision as contained under Section 13 of the U.A.(P) Act, 1967. Further against the -8- appellant criminal cases of similar nature are pending and trial in most of the cases is in progress.
20. In the instant case sanction has been granted as required under Section 45 of the Act, 1967 as such if at this stage if the appellant will be directed to be released on bail then the trial in the pending criminal cases will be adversely affected taking into consideration the fact as aforesaid and criminal antecedent of the appellant. Therefore, this Court is of the view that while rejecting the prayer for regular bail, the learned Court has committed no error.
21. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Alankar/