Jharkhand High Court
Niral Horo vs The State Of Jharkhand on 30 October, 2023
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.831 of 2023
-----
Niral Horo, Aged about 57 years, Son of Late Manish Das Horo, Resident of Village : Burungkel, P.O.: Gudri, P.S.:
Sonua, District Singhbhum West ... ... 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. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl. P.P.
------
Order No. 09/Dated 30th October, 2023
1. The instant appeal under section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 has been directed against the order dated 06.04.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Chaibasa in B.P. No.137 of 2023 whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with Sonua P.S. Case No.38 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. Case No.362(S)/2011, registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 121, 121-A, 307, 353, 302, 324, 326, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 25(1-A), 25-1(B)a/27 of the Arms Act, Section 17 of C.L.A. Act and Section 10 and 13 of U.A.P. Act, has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the case is of the year 2011 but he has been apprehended on 21.02.2023, i.e., after lapse of about 12 years.2
3. It has been contended that there is no involvement of the appellant in any other case of like nature or any type of criminal case during the period of 12 years.
4. The further contention has been made that although the appellant is named in the F.I.R. but there is no specific attributability against him if the F.I.R. will be taken into consideration as also the entire case diary.
5. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid premise, has submitted that the learned court has not considered these aspects of the matter and, as such, the impugned order needs to be interfered with.
6. While on the other hand, Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, has vehemently opposed the submission made on behalf of the appellant to interfere with the impugned order dated 06.04.2023. Such submission has been made on the ground that it is correct on the part of the appellant to make submission that the F.I.R. is of the year 2011 and he has been taken into custody on 21.02.2023 but that has happened only because of the reason that there was no sanction under Section 121-A of I.PC. and the moment the competent authority of the State has granted sanction, then the process for securing the appearance of the appellant has been taken and in course thereof he has been taken into custody.
7. Learned counsel for the State, therefore, submits that by taking into consideration the gravity of the offence wherein 3 one police personnel has died when the appellant along with other Maoists had opened fire targeting the police personnel with intention to kill them and, as such, since learned court has taken into consideration these aspects of the matter while rejecting the prayer for bail, therefore, the impugned order may not be interfered with.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the finding recorded by the learned court in the impugned order as also the case diary including the affidavit in objection filed on behalf of the State.
9. This Court, after going through the material available on record, has found that the appellant is languishing in judicial custody of a case of the year 2011 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 121, 121-A, 307, 353, 302, 324, 326, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 25(1-A), 25-
1(B)a/27 of the Arms Act, Section 17 of C.L.A. Act and Section 10 and 13 of U.A.P. Act.
10. It further appears that one of the Sections is 121-A of Indian Penal Code.
11. The ground has been taken on behalf of the appellant that although the case is of the year 2011 but the appellant has been taken into judicial custody only on 21.02.2023 and during the aforesaid period there is no whisper that the appellant has been found to be involved in the case of like nature or any criminal case of like nature has ever been instituted against the appellant during the aforesaid period. 4
12. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is no criminal antecedent.
13. This Court, on consideration of the aforesaid submission and considering the submission made on behalf of the State to the effect that there was no arrest of the appellant due to want of sanction as is required as per the provision of Section 121-A of the I.P.C., but, even accepting the aforesaid submission to be correct, then the question is that it is not a case where only allegation against the appellant is under Section 121-A of the I.P.C. where the sanction from the competent authority is required but there are other offences under which the F.I.R. has been instituted, i.e., Sections 147, 148, 149, 121, 307, 353, 302, 324, 326, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 25(1-A), 25- 1(B)a/27 of the Arms Act, Section 17 of C.L.A. Act and Section 10 and 13 of U.A.P. Act.
14. The question therefore is that as to whether the aforesaid contention of the State can be said to be acceptable that due to want of sanction the prosecution has not taken any endeavor for securing the appearance of the appellant to bring him before the judicial system.
15. We are not in a position to accept the same due to the reason that apart from the offence under Section 121-A of the I.P.C. and Sections 10/13 of the U.A.P. Act, the F.I.R. is also under other Sections then the prosecution ought to have taken endeavor for securing appearance of the appellant by taking recourse of the process by issuance of non-bailable 5 warrant of arrest, processes under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. but it is admitted case of the prosecution that all the steps regarding issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest, processes under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. had only been taken after the sanction having been granted by the competent authority of the State to initiate the prosecution under Section 121-A of the I.P.C.
16. It further appears, which has not been denied by the State, that the appellant has got no criminal antecedent.
17. Further, the appellant although remained out of custody from the date of institution of the F.I.R. till his arrest, i.e., on 21.02.2023, but there is no involvement of the appellant in any criminal case.
18. This Court, based upon the aforesaid consideration, is of the view that the learned court ought to have taken into consideration theses aspects of the matter but having not done so, hence we are of the view that the impugned order needs to be interfered with.
19. Accordingly, the order dated 06.04.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Chaibasa in B.P. No.137 of 2023 in connection with Sonua P.S. Case No.38 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. Case No.362(S)/2011, is, hereby, quashed and set aside.
20. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.
21. 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 6 like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned S.D.J.M. (Porahat), at Chaibasa in connection with Sonua P.S. Case No.38 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. Case No.362(S)/2011, subject to the conditions that the appellant shall co-operate in the trial and shall not absent himself on the date fixed without any cogent cause and shall not commit offence of the like nature. In failure, the learned trial court shall have liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law so that trial be not hindered.
22. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Navneet Kumar, J.) Birendra/