Allowed

Tabarej Khan Alias Mohammad Tabarej Khan v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC6 Apr 2023Cr.A(DB)/391/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand allowed a criminal appeal challenging the rejection of bail. Considering that co-accused were granted bail or acquitted and the FIR allegations were general, the court quashed the lower court order and directed the appellant's release on bail.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of 01.03.2023 rejecting bail is quashed; appellant is directed to be released on bail for Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of Rs. 10,000 each.

Tabarej Khan Alias Mohammad Tabarej Khan Vs the State of… — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 391 of 2023

¶2

Tabarej Khan @ Mohammad Tabarej Khan @ Tabrej Khan

¶3

.... .… Appellant

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand …. ….Respondent

¶6

¶7

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

¶8

¶9

For the Appellant : Ms. Shamma Parveen, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P.

¶10

¶11

Order No.02/dated 06.04.2023

¶12

The instant appeal preferred under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is directed against the order dated 01.03.2023 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-IX, Giridih in B.P.No. 102 of 2023, arising out of Giridih (M) P.S. Case No. 290 of 2012 by which prayer for bail of the appellant, namely, Tabarej Khan @ Mohammad Tabarej Khan @ Tabrej Khan has been rejected.

¶13

Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is not named in the F.I.R. as also no incriminating material has been recovered from his physical possession or from his conscious possession rather his name has transpired only on the basis of confession made by the coaccused persons.

¶14

It has been submitted by referring to the First Information Report wherein the general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the 30 to 40 members basis upon which he has been remanded in this case. It has

¶15

¶16

further been submitted that the other accused persons, namely, Babulal Besra has been granted bail in B.A.No.8609 of 2014 vide order dated 10.02.2015; Tejo Mandal @ Satya Narayan Mandal has been granted bail in B.A.No.8635 of 2014 vide order dated 20.02.2015; Chandra Marandi & Ashok Chore @ Chodey have been granted bail in B.A.No. 1943 of 2016 vide order dated 18.03.2016 and Madan Rai has been granted bail in B.A.No.8828 of 2016 vide order dated 22.10.2016 by the Bench of this Court.

¶17

Further some of the co-accused persons, namely Mithilesh Mandal, Nemchand Mahto, Israfil @ Guddu and Ramesh Mandal @ Rameshwar Mandal have even been acquitted by the Trial Court vide judgment dated 24.02.2023 in S.T.No.315 of 2018, S.T.No.118 of 2019 and S.T.No.336 of 2021, arising out of Giridih Muffasil P.S. Case No. 290 of 2012.

¶18

Learned Counsel for the appellant, therefore, has submitted that the learned Trial Court has not considered the aforesaid facts.

¶19

Ms. Ruby Pandey, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has submitted that, since, the offence although is for the schedule offence but the investigation has been conducted by the State Police only, matter having not been referred to the National Investigation Agency.

¶20

It has been submitted on behalf of the State that by defending the order impugned whereby the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected by taking into consideration that

¶21

¶22

due to attack on the Prisoner Van with bomb, an explosive, the driver of Prisoner Van and one of the prisoner died and Naxal took away the arms and ammunitions from the police personnel.

¶23

It has further been submitted that the learned Trial Court has also taken into consideration the fact that there were 7-8 naxal prisoners among the 35 prisoner in the Prisoner Van and only for the purpose of escaping them such attack were there.

¶24

This Court has heard the learned Counsel for the parties and after taking into consideration the allegation as made in the F.I.R. that the allegations have been levelled against 30 to 40 persons which is general and omnibus. Further some of the accused persons have already been directed to be released on bail by order passed by this Court as would appear from the order dated 10.02.2015, 20.02.2015, 18.03.2016, 22.10.2016.

¶25

Further the accused, namely, Mithilesh Mandal, Nemchand Mahto, Israil @ Guddu and Ramesh Mandal @ Rameshwar Mandal have also been acquitted on conclusion of the trial by judgment dated 24.02.2023 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge-IX, Giridih in S.T.No.315 of 2018, S.T.No.118 of 2019 and S.T.No.336 of 2021, arising out of Giridih Muffasil P.S. Case No. 290 of 2012.

¶26

The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor could not be able to differentiate the case of the appellant with the cases, who have been directed to be released on bail by the order passed by

¶27

¶28

this Court as also accused persons have been acquitted by the Trial Court.

¶29

Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, the instant appeal deserves to be allowed. Accordingly the order dated order dated 01.03.2023 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-IX, Giridih in B.P.No. 102 of 2023, arising out of Giridih (M) P.S. Case No. 290 of 2012 is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶30

In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.

¶31

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 S.D.J.M., Giridih in connection with Giridih (M) P.S. Case No. 290 of 2012, corresponding to G.R.No.2693 of 2012).

¶32

Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of.

¶33

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶34

(Subhash Chand, J.)

¶35

P.K.S.

Tabarej Khan Alias Mohammad Tabarej Khan v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tabarej Khan Alias Mohammad Tabarej Khan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

MD Salim Qureshi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manoj Kumar Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Geeta Neera Tiga Vs Union of India through Secretary Prasar Bharati All India Radio

Ram Kumar Ganjhu Alias Shekhar Ganjhu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nandlal Bharti Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rashid Jawed Alias Sanju Vs the State of Jharkhand