Jharkhand High Court
Raj Kumar Bhagat vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 April, 2023
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Subhash Chand
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 218 of 2023
Raj Kumar Bhagat, aged about 35 years, son of Ramnath Bhagat, resident of
Village Kubriam, PO & PS Ramgarh, District Dumka .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
---------------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND For the Appellant : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Nishant Kr. Roy, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, APP
---------------
th Order No. 04/ Dated: 19 April 2023 The instant appeal under section 21(4) of the NIA Act, 2008 has been directed against the order dated 2.2.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Dumka in B.P No. 400 of 2022 whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail in connection with Shikaripara PS Case No. 40 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. Case No.551 of 2014 for the offence registered under sections 147, 148, 149, 326, 307, 353, 302, 379, 427, 121 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of Arms Act, Section 3/4 of Explosive Substance Act, section 17 of CLA Act as also under section 10/13 of U.A.P. Act, has been rejected.
2. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant assisted by Mr. Nishant Kr. Roy has submitted that in pursuance to the order dated 17 th March, 2023, the case diary has been called for. He has made his argument by making reference of various paragraphs of the case diary, wherein, the reference of the confessional statements as made by Baburam Kisku, Som Murmu, Budhinath Murmu and Vimal Hembram shown to have been recorded at different pages, i.e., page no.32, page no.43, page no.51 and page no.125 to 129 respectively, wherein, in the confessional statement as made by the co-accused, has disclosed the name of one Bhagat, so far as it relates to the confession 2 Cr. App. (DB) No.218 of 2023 made by one Baburam Kisku while, the Som Murmu, in his confession, has not disclosed the name of any Bhagat. Budhinath Murmu has disclosed the name of one Bhagat Singh of Giridih, however, the appellant of this case has been arrested from the district of Ramgarh. Vimal Hembram has stated in his confessional statement by disclosing the name of Bhagat Singh Kisku of Shikaripara of the district Dumka referring the age of the person concerned to be 16 years. It has been contended that at the time of arrest of the appellant, his age was shown to be 40 years. The further contention has been raised that the occurrence took place in the year, 2014, while, after 8 years the appellant has been taken into custody from his house only. It has further been submitted that there is no criminal antecedent against the appellant.
Learned senior counsel, on the background of the aforesaid fact, has submitted that the learned court below ought to have considered all these facts but having not considered the aforesaid fact the prayer of bail has been rejected, therefore, the instant appeal.
3. While on the other hand, Mrs. Vandana Bharti, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Jharkhand has submitted by referring to the statement of the investigating officer that he has gathered the evidence against the appellant and has come to the conclusion about his complicity in the crime, wherein, four police personnel had died. The submission has also been made that the confessional statement, so recorded of the co-accused persons, have also disclosed the name of Bhagat, basis upon which, he has been taken into custody.
The learned APP, on the basis of the aforesaid fact has submitted that on the basis of the aforesaid ground, the learned trial court has rejected the prayer for bail, which cannot be said to suffer from an error.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the finding recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned order as also gone through the case diary.
3 Cr. App. (DB) No.218 of 20235. This Court has found from page no. 24 of the case diary that the name of the appellant has not been disclosed. It appears from page 32 of the case diary which contains confessional of one Baburam Kisku that he has not disclosed the name of appellant.
The confessional statement of the another co-accused namely, Som Murmu as as available at page no.43 of the case diary, wherein, he has not disclosed the name of appellant, but, the another co-accused person namely, Budhinath Murmu has disclosed the name of one Bhagat Singh of Giridih but not disclosed the name of appellant.
The confessional statement of Vimal Hembram has been recorded at page no.125 to 129, has also not disclosed the name of appellant, rather, he has disclosed the name of Bhagat Singh Kisku of Shikaripara in the district of Dumka having the age of 16 years. It appears that the appellant at the time of his arrest, i.e., on 6.11.2022 was having the age of 40 years.
6. Admittedly, herein, the TIP has not been conducted.
7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also submitted that the TIP has not been conducted. It further appears that the occurrence took place in the year 2014, but the appellant has taken into custody on 6.11.2022. It has been submitted that the appellant was taken into custody from his house only. The fact about the arrest of the appellant from his house has not been disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. We further found from the case diary that there is no reference of any criminal antecedent against the appellant.
8. This Court, after going through the confessional statement, so recorded by the co-accused persons, has come to the conclusion that while giving the confession by the co-accused persons, the name of the appellant has not been disclosed by them, save and except, the reference of Bhagat Singh Kisku was made.
9. This Court, considering the aforesaid fact as also taking into consideration the fact that no TIP has been conducted, is of the view that the trial Court ought to have taken into consideration all these aspects of 4 Cr. App. (DB) No.218 of 2023 the matter.
10. Considering the same, we are of the view that the impugned order dated 2.2.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Dumka in B.P No. 400 of 2022 requires interference.
11. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 2.2.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Dumka in B.P No. 400 of 2022 is hereby quashed and set aside.
12. 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 1 st Class, Dumka in connection with Shikaripara PS Case No. 40 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. Case No.551 of 2014.
13. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Subhash Chand, J.) RKM