The High Court allowed an appeal against an order rejecting bail. Finding complicity surfaced via confession of an already released co-accused, the Court quashed the rejection order and granted bail to the appellant.
The appellant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.87 of 2023
------
Ram Kumar Ganjhu @ Shekhar Ganjhu aged about 56 years son of Late Bhagwat Ganjhu …. …. Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. National Investigation Agency (NIA) .... .... Respondent
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
------ For the Appellant : Mr. Abhay Kr. Chaturvedy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, APP
------
06/Dated: 6th April, 2023
The instant appeal preferred under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is directed against the order dated 09.12.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chatra in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.1577 of 2022, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for release of the appellant from judicial custody has been rejected.
2. Mr. Abhay Kr. Chatruvedy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted by referring to the first information report that although, the appellant is named in the FIR but there is no specific overt act has been alleged against him.
He submits that his name has transpired from the confession of one Pradeep Kumar Ganjhu but the said Pradeep Kumar Ganjhu from whose possession, three cell phones and Rs.55,500/- cash and one motorcycle bearing No.JH-01CG-4011 were recovered, has been directed to be released on bail by this Court vide order dated 01.08.2018 passed in
B.A. No.4487 of 2018.
He further submits that other co-accused persons, namely, Kamakhya Ganjhu @ Anishckay Ganjhu @ Anishchay Jee @ Kadak Singh, Binod Ganjhu @ Binod Kumar Ganjhu, Bindu Ganjhu @ Bindeshwar Ganjhu, have also been directed to be released on bail by this Court vide order dated 08.07.2021, 15.07.2021 and 09.12.2021 passed in B.A. No.5645 of 2021, B.A. No.5538 of 2021 and B.A. No.12614 of 2021 respectively.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, in the aforesaid background has submitted that the learned trial Court ought to have taken into consideration the fact that several accused persons have already been directed to be released on bail. Moreover, the persons from whose possession the materials have been recovered including the motorcycle and the cash amount has since been directed to be released on bail on his confession, only the name of the appellant has transpired in the instant case, therefore, the impugned order on the basis of the aforesaid fact requires interference.
4. Mr. Saket Kumar, learned APP appearing for the State has submitted by defending the order passed by the learned trial Court by advancing his argument that the complicity of the appellant has been surfaced in course of investigation and after taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, the learned trial Court has declined to grant privilege of bail and as such, the aforesaid ground cannot be said to suffer from an error.
5. This Court after having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after taking into consideration the fact that the complicity of the appellant has been found on the basis of the confession made by one Pradeep Kumar Ganjhu who has already been directed to be released on
bail by this Court vide order dated 01.08.2018 passed in B.A. No.4487 of 2018 as also the other accused persons, namely, Kamakhya Ganjhu @ Anishckay Ganjhu @ Anishchay Jee @ Kadak Singh, Binod Ganjhu @ Binod Kumar Ganjhu, Bindu Ganjhu @ Bindeshwar Ganjhu, have also been directed to be released on bail by this Court vide order dated 08.07.2021, 15.07.2021 and 09.12.2021 passed in B.A. No.5645 of 2021, B.A. No.5538 of 2021 and B.A. No.12614 of 2021 respectively, therefore, is of the view that the impugned order dated 09.12.2022 passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.1577 of 2022 requires interference. 6. Accordingly, the order dated 09.12.2022 passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.1577 of 2022 by the learned Sessions Judge, Chatra in connection with Simariya P.S. Case No.30 of 2018, corresponding to G.R. No.288 of 2018, is hereby quashed and set aside.
7. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.
8. 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 Additional Sessions Judge 1st , Chatra in connection with Simariya P.S. Case No.30 of 2018, corresponding to G.R. No.288 of 2018.
9. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Subhash Chand, J.)
Rohit/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the rejection of bail sought by the appellant.
Whether the impugned order rejecting bail in the NIA case requires interference given that co-accused persons have been released on bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Kumar Ganjhu @ Shekhar Ganjhu
The State of Jharkhand
National Investigation Agency (NIA)
Sujit Narayan Prasad
Subhash Chand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
