Allowed

Naresh Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC19 Apr 2023Cr.A(DB)/882/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench quashed the lower court's order rejecting bail for the appellant in an NIA Act case. Finding no specific overt acts beyond presence at an incident and noting acquittals of key witnesses and co-accused, the court allowed the appeal and directed release on bail.

What did the court decide?

The order rejecting bail was quashed; the appellant was released on a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of like amount each.

Naresh Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 882 of 2022

Naresh Yadav

.... .… Appellant

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

…. ….Respondent

¶7

¶8

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

¶9

¶10

For the Appellant : Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Advocate. : Mr. Pran Pranay, Advocate.

¶11

For the Respondent : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P.

¶12

¶13

Order No.06/dated 19.04.2023

¶14

The instant appeal preferred under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is directed against the order dated 24.03.2022 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-IX, Giridih in B.P. No. 84 of 2022 whereby and whereunder prayer for bail of the appellant, namely, Naresh Yadav in connection with Deori P.S. Case No. 167 of 2007, registered under Sections 147,148,149,341,342,307,302,353,379 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of Arms Act, Section 13 of UAP Act and Section 17 of CLA Act has been rejected.

¶15

Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that there is no specific overt act has been alleged against the appellant and merely on the basis of the fact that the appellant was found in the meeting where the incidence of indiscriminate firing occurred, his complicity has been shown.

¶16

It has been submitted that the basis upon the confession, the appellant has been remanded on the basis of

¶17

¶18

confessional statement made by Kishun Rajwar who has been acquitted by the trial court itself. The other accused persons, namely, Chhatar @ Chhatrapati Mandal, Manoj Rajwar, Anil Ram and Jitan Marandi have also been acquitted by the Coordinate Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 15^th December, 2011 in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 461 of 2011; Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 466 of 2011 and Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 509 of 2011.

¶19

It has further been contended that the bail of the other accused persons, namely, Sunil Manjhi @ Suni Manjhi @ Badka Sunil @ Lambu and Ramlal Marandi @ Binod Ji @ Albert have also been considered and they have been directed to be on bail. It has also been contended that the name of Jetan Kisku @ Jitan Marandi has also specifically been taken by Subodh Sao as would appear from paragraph 71 of the case diary but he has also been directed to be released on bail vide order dated 27.04.2016 passed by this Court in B.A. No. 2909 of 2016.

¶20

The submission, on the basis of the aforesaid background, has been made that since there is no specific overt act against the appellant and the person by whom the name has been first disclosed has already been acquitted by the trial court itself and further the other persons against whom the identical nature of allegation has been levelled have also been directed to be released on bail, therefore, it is also a fit case where the impugned order requires interference by directing for release of the appellant from the judicial custody.

¶21

¶22

Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Jharkhand has submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order, since, the learned trial court after taking into consideration the fact that in the meeting indiscriminate firing was conducted leading to death of 17 persons and 12 persons have injured.

¶23

It has been submitted that in course of investigation it has been found by the Investigating Agency, the appellant who has been found to be active member of the banned group, the M.C.C.

¶24

It has been contended, therefore, on the basis of the said premise the learned trial court has rejected the bail application of the appellant, the same cannot be said to suffer from error.

¶25

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the finding recorded by the learned trial court as also the case diary, we have found that the allegation although has been levelled against the appellant but there is no specific overt act, save and except, it has been referred that the appellant was sitting in the assembly the time when the indiscriminate firing was conducted. The fact above the release on bail of the other co-accused persons, namely, Sunil Manjhi @ Suni Manjhi @ Badka Sunil @ Lambu, Jitan Kishu @ Jitan Marandi, Ramlal Marandi @ Binod Ji @ Albert, Chhatar @ Chhatrapati Mandal, Manoj Rajwar, Anil Ram and Jitan Marandi is not in dispute. Further the accused person who had made confession has also been acquitted by the learned trial

¶26

¶27

court itself and accused persons who had made confession have also been acquitted by the Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.12.2011 in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 461 of 2011, Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 466 of 2011 and Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 509 of 2011. It has been informed that against their judgment of acquittal, the State of Jharkhand has preferred Special Leave Petition but the same has been dismissed.

¶28

This Court has also considered the order passed by this Court (learned Single Judge), in the case of Sunil Manjhi @ Suni Manjhi @ Badka Sunil @ Lambu dated 27.11.2015 passed in B.A.No. 3369 of 2015, wherein, the bail of the said Sunil Manjhi has been considered after taking into consideration the fact that the conviction has been acquitted by the Division Bench of this Court in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 461, 466 and 509 of 2011. Further the Court has considered that against the judgment of acquittal, Special Leave Petition had been preferred, the Cr. Appeal No. 406 and 409 of 2013 but was dismissed vide order dated 13.10.2015. 11. It further appears that on the basis of the said fact i.e. the acquittal of the other co-accused person one Jitan Kisku @ Jitan Marandi has also been directed to be released on bail by this Court (learned Single Judge) vide order dated 27.04.2016 passed in B.A.No. 2909 of 2016. 12. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the case of the Jitan Marandi stands exactly similar to that of the case of the appellant, since, the name of Jitam Marandi has also been disclosed by one witness, Subodh Sao who has

¶29

¶30

disclosed the name of the present appellant. Further one Ramlal Marandi @ Binod Ji @ Albert has also been directed to be released on bail by this Court (learned Single Judge) vide order dated 10.11.2017 passed in B.A.No. 8189 of 2017.

¶31

Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of this case and considering the fact as referred here-in-above, this Court is of the view that the impugned order requires interference.

¶32

Accordingly, the order dated 24.03.2022 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge-IX in B.P.No. 84 of 2022 is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶33

In consequence thereof, this appeal is allowed. 16. Accordingly, the appellant, named above, is directed to be released from judicial custody on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Giridih in connection with Deori P.S. Case No. 167 of

¶34

¶35

In view thereof, the instant appeal stands disposed of.

¶36

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶37

(Subhash Chand, J.)

¶38

P.K.S.

Naresh Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh Yadav 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

Kaushila Kumari Alias Kaushila Manjhi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Upendra Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nathuni Singh Alias Nathuni Ji Vs the State of Jharkhand

Raj Kumar Bhagat Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sharuddin Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manisha Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand