Dismissed

Nathuni Singh Alias Nathuni Ji v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC12 Apr 2023Cr.A(DB)/237/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed an appeal seeking regular bail. Upholding the Sessions Judge's order, the court held the appeal was devoid of merit due to the appellant's alleged membership in a banned extremist group, possession of arms, and multiple similar pending cases.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Appeal was dismissed; the order of rejection of bail was held to require no interference.

Nathuni Singh Alias Nathuni Ji Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.A. (DB) No. 237 of 2023

¶3

Nathuni Singh @ Nathuni Ji aged 29 years son of Late Niranjan Singh, resident of village Matlong, P.O. and P.S. Manika, District Latehar. … Appellant

¶4

… Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand ..… … … Respondent

¶7

------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND ------For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Satish Prasad, APP

¶8

¶9

Order No. 05 / Dated 12^th April, 2023

¶10

Learned counsel for the respondent-State has submitted that in terms of order dated 05.04.2023 passed by this Court counter affidavit is ready to be filed, but could not be filed in advanced, however copy of the same has been served upon the appellant as such sought for permission of this Court to submit the same before this Court.

¶11

Let the same be kept on record.

¶12

The instant appeal has been filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act against the order dated 30.01.2023 passed in B.P. No. 35 of 2023 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Latehar whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail of the appellant has been refused in connection with Latehar P.S. Case No. 164 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 73 of 2023 for the offence registered under Sections 25(1-A)/25(1-

¶13

¶14

AA)/26(2)/35 of the Arms Act and under Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar.

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. There is no recovery from the physical possessions of the appellant. The appellant has been remanded in this case from another case and the appellant is in judicial custody since 22.11.2022.

¶16

In the backdrop of aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is a fit case where order of rejection of regular bail passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Latehar is required to be set aside and the appellant may be released on bail.

¶17

On the other hand, learned A.P.P appearing for the State on the strength of averment made in counter affidavit and case diary has submitted that the appellant is the member of banned extremist group. Learned State counsel referring to various paragraph of case diary has submitted that arms and ammunitions in large quantity recovered from the suspected place during search operation conducted by police. Further referring to 9 of the counter affidavit, it has been submitted that on the basis of report furnished by Officer-in-Charge, Latehar Police Station the appellant has got six criminal antecedents of similar

¶18

¶19

nature. It has further been submitted that taking into consideration nature of allegation in this case also other cases pending against the appellant, there is every likelihood of disturbance in the law and order since the appellant is the active member of ‘Tirtiye Prastuti Sammelan Samiti’ (TPSS), a banned organization in the State of Jharkhand.

¶20

In view thereof, submission has been made by learned A.P.P. that the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Latehar requires no interference.

¶21

We have heard learned counsel for the parties, and on appreciation of rival submissions and on perusal of the contents of case diary and counter affidavit filed by the State as also the order passed by learned Sessions Judge-I, Latehar, found therefrom that the appellant is a named accused in the F.I.R. and for commission of offence in the capacity of active member of the banned extremist group, T.S.P.C, wherein he is alleged to have been given the status of Area Commandar. The allegation is also there in the F.I.R. that police after coming to know that the extremist TSPC concealed their arms and ammunition in Jaram Forest after encounter between the police and TSPC extremists on 26.03.2022, the extremists and were intending to cause harm to police force, registered a Sahna and proceeded to place of occurrence and on digging the

¶22

¶23

police recovered a loaded AK-47 Rifle along with 9 alive cartridges in its magazine, a magazine of 5.56 Insas riffle along with 20 alive cartridges and 43 alive cartridges of 5.56 Insas riffle kept in a plastic bag.

¶24

It further appears that in the case at hand, charge-sheet has also been submitted for the offence under Sections 25(1-A)/25(1-AA)/26(2)/35 of the Arms Act and under Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act as also six criminal cases of identical nature are pending against him.

¶25

This Court, taking into consideration these facts, is of the view that it is not a fit case to quash the order of rejection of bail passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Latehar.

¶26

Accordingly, the instant Criminal Appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.

¶27

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶28

(Subhash Chand, J.)

¶29

Alankar/-

Nathuni Singh Alias Nathuni Ji v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nathuni Singh Alias Nathuni Ji v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its General Manager Sijua Area No v Sri Ashutosh Dwivedi Vs Neha Choubey

Rubi Rani Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Samim Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Upendra Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nathuni Singh Alias Nathuni Ji Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chetlal Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand