Allowed

Nirman Kumar Alias Maruti v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC16 Mar 2023Cr.A(DB)/198/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an interlocutory application to condone a 56-day delay. Subsequently, in the bail appeal under the National Investigation Agency Act, the Court quashed the bail rejection order and granted bail to the appellant given the nature of his custody and lack of antecedents.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the appellant on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties for each Rs. 10,000.

Nirman Kumar Alias Maruti Vs State of Jharkhand — Narcotics (NDPS) | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 198 of 2023

¶2

Nirman Kumar @ Maruti ……..… Appellant

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand …….Respondent.

¶5

------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND ------For the Appellant : Mr. Shailesh Poddar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Amrita Kumari, A.P.P. ----------------------------

¶6

04/Dated: 16^th March, 2023

¶7

I.A. No.1765 of 2023

¶8

This interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 56 days, which has occurred in preferring this appeal.

¶9

Heard the parties.

¶10

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the statements made in this application, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented from sufficient cause in preferring this appeal within time. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is allowed and the delay of 56 days in preferring this appeal is, hereby, condoned.

¶11

I.A. No.1765 of 2023 stands disposed of.

¶12

Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 198 of 2023

¶13

The instant appeal has been filed under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 for quashing the order dated 16^th November, 2022 passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in B.P. No.1649 of 2022 registered under Section 290 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(d) of Suppression of Unlawful Act against Safety of Civil Aviation Act pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for regular bail filed on behalf of the appellant has been rejected.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is absolutely innocent. It is further submitted that since the appellant has remained in custody for about six months and as per the case-diary the complicity of the appellant has been found on the basis of his self-confession and confessional statement of co-accused, as such, he may be directed to be released on bail after interfering with the impugned order of rejection.

¶15

While on the other hand, Mrs. Amrita Kumari, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that one mobile has been recovered from the possession of the appellant.

¶16

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶17

This Court taking into consideration the case-diary, wherein the complicity of the appellant has been found on the basis of confession of coaccused and there is also no criminal antecedent and since he has remained in custody for about six months, therefore, deems it fit and proper to interfere with the order dated 16^th November, 2022 passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in B.P. No.1649 of 2022 in connection with Airport P.S. Case No.41 of 2022.

¶18

Accordingly, the order dated 16^th November, 2022 passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in B.P. No.1649 of 2022 is, hereby, quashed and set aside.

¶19

In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.

¶20

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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in connection with Airport P.S. Case No.41 of 2022.

¶21

Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of.

¶22

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶23

(Subhash Chand, J.)

¶24

Rohit Pandey/-

Nirman Kumar Alias Maruti v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirman Kumar Alias Maruti v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hasina Khatoon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nashrat Khan Alias Nasrat Khan Alias Afjal Ahmad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Birendra Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pappu Kumar Alias Kuri Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ms Santosh Construction through Its One of the Partner Santosh Kumar Singh Vs Union of India through the National Investigation Agency

Jharkhand State Electricity Board Now Juvnl through Its Chairman Vs Sri Sita Ram Pandey