Jharkhand High Court
Subodh Prasad Sahu vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Ats on 6 February, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1777 of 2023
----------
Subodh Prasad Sahu, aged about 33 years, s/o Mahendra Sahu, resident of
48 (A), Hastu, Sikidri, P.O. and P.S. Sikidri, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through ATS ... ... Respondent
With
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1824 of 2023
----------
Sudhir Kumar @ Tappu, aged about 43 years, s/o Late Shambhu Nath
Som, r/o Village-Nabaghanti Road, Baishnab Dham, Asansol, P.O. & P.S.
Asansol, District-Bardhman, West Bengal.
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through ATS ... ... Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-------
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1777 of 2023:
For the Appellant : Mr. Suraj Verma, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Naveen Kr. Ganjhu, APP
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1824 of 2023:
For the Appellant : Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, APP
----------------------------
ORAL ORDER
06/Dated: 06th February, 2024 .
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1777 of 2023:
1. The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 01.08.2023 passed by the learned AJC XVIII cum Spl. Judge, ATS, Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application No. 2124 of 2023, by which the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with ATS Case No. 05 of 2023 registered under Section 25(1AA), 25(6), 25(7), 26/35 of Arms Act, has been rejected.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the case of the present appellant is based upon the factual aspect of the case of Rajesh Jha, the appellant of Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1455 of 2023 who has 2 been directed to be released on bail by interfering with the order rejecting prayer for bail vide order dated 06.12.2023.
3. Mr. Naveen Kr. Ganjhu, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has submitted that so far as the case of the appellant is concerned, the case is identically placed with the case of Rajesh Jha.
Such submission has been made by going through the order dated 06.12.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1455 of 2023 when the same had been handed over to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the finding recorded by the learned court in the impugned order.
5. This Court has examined the factual aspect in order to come to the conclusion that the case of the appellant is identically placed with the case of Rajesh Jha, who has been directed to be released on bail vide order dated 06.12.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1455 of 2023.
6. It is evident from the factual aspect and the material surfaced in course of investigation as recorded in the case diary that Rajesh Jha, the co- accused, from his possession mobile phone was recovered and from the present appellant also, as per the prosecution version and the material collected in course of investigation, mobile phone has been recovered, save and except, there is no incriminating material recovered in course of investigation. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to take distinct view with respect to the case of the present appellant.
7. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the impugned order needs to be interfered with.
8. Accordingly, the order dated 01.08.2023 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 2124 of 2023 in connection with ATS Case No. 05 of 2023, is hereby quashed and set aside.
9. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.
310. 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 AJC-XVIII, Ranchi in connection with ATS Case No. 05 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.
11. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of.
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1824 of 2023:
12. The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 01.08.2023 passed by the learned AJC XVIII cum Spl. Judge, ATS, Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application No. 2244 of 2023, by which the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with ATS Case No. 05 of 2023 registered under Section 25(1AA), 25(6), 25(7), 26 and 35 of Arms Act, has been rejected.
13. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the present appellant has falsely been implicated in this case and has not committed any offence whatsoever.
14. It has also been submitted that the appellant is not a member of any organized crime syndicate.
15. Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the present appellant.
16. It has been submitted that the prayer for bail of the co-accused person, namely, Tinku Singh, has already been rejected vide order dated 06.12.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) no. 1518 of 2023 from whose possession, as per the case diary, three live cartridges of 9 mm was recovered.
Further ground has been taken therein that he was having two criminal antecedents.
417. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the finding recorded by the learned court in the impugned order.
18. So far as the allegation of involvement of the appellant it the present case is concerned, seven criminal antecedents excluding the present one are there. One loaded pistol, three live cartridges and mobile phones have been recovered and from the said mobile phone, call has been received and based upon the CDR report of the connectivity of the WhatsApp call from the call of the victim. Certificate has also been given by the competent authority in view of the provision of Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
19. This Court has taken into consideration the fact that the prayer for bail of co-accused person, namely, Tinku Singh, has already been rejected vide order dated 06.12.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) no. 1518 of 2023 from whose possession, as per the case diary, three live cartridges of 9 mm was recovered.
20. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the impugned order needs no interference.
21. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Saurabh/-