Charka Hembram Alias Charka Marandi Alias Kallu Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1082 of 2024

Charka Hembram @ Charka Marandi @ Kallu, aged about 41 years, Son of Late Ramu Hembram, Resident of Village- Diwandih, P.O.- Kumhar Lalo, P.S. Pirtand, District- Giridih (Jharkhand ) --- --- Appellant

¶4

--- --- Appellant Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

¶7

For the Appellant : Mr. Anjani Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, A.P.P.

¶8

Order No.4 / Dated 16^th October, 2024

¶9

The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 09.07.2024 passed in M.C.A. No. 1099 of 2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih in connection with Pirtand P.S. Case No. 15 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1623 of 2018, whereby and whereunder prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been rejected for the offence registered under Section 25(1-b)a, 26/35 of the Arms Act, Section 3/4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act, Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act and Section 13 of U.A.P. Act.

¶10

It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the appellant has been remanded in the present case (Pirtand P.S. Case No. 15 of 2018) on 13.10.2023 since he was in custody in connection with Pirtand P.S. Case No. 45 of 2008.

¶11

It has been contended that in the said Pirtand P.S. Case No. 45 of 2008 the appellant has been directed to be released on bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1643 of 2023 vide order dated 18.04.2024 on the ground that several coaccused persons have been granted bail by this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1169 of 2022, B.A. No. 536 of 2022 and B.A. No. 1383 of 2014.

¶12

It has further been contended that so far as merit is concerned, appellant has not been apprehended from the spot, rather, only on the basis of the allegations made by the villagers, he has been remanded in the present case. However, there is no reference of any name of the villagers in the impugned order.

¶13

Therefore, categorical argument has been advanced that when the appellant has already been directed to be released on bail in Pirtand P.S. Case No. 42 of 2008 and thereafter in Pirtand P.S. Case No. 45 of 2008 from which case he has been remanded in this case, this aspect of the matter should have been taken into consideration by the learned Court.

¶14

It has been further contended that the learned Court, without assigning any specific reason, merely by making reference to para 7, 15 and 16 of the case diary to support the prosecution version, has passed the impugned order but there is no reference to the effect that what is the attributability said to have been committed by the appellant.

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that it is a fit case where the impugned order is to be quashed.

¶16

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. Learned A.P.P has made reference to the impugned order wherein the learned Court has rejected the prayer for bail on consideration of the criminal antecedent of the appellant. Further, the attributability of the appellant in the commission of crime shown in the case diary has been taken note of by the learned Court by making reference to para 7, 15 and 16 thereof. 9. Learned A.P.P., based on the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the impugned order needs no interference.

¶17

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone across the findings rendered by the learned Court as also the orders granting

¶18

2 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1082 of 2024

¶19

bail to the appellant in Pirtand P.S. Case No. 42 of 2008 and Pirtand P.S. Case No. 45 of 2008.

¶20

The fact is admitted that initially appellant was implicated in Pirtand P.S. Case No. 42 of 2008 and from that he was remanded in Pirtand P.S. Case No. 45 of 2008 and from there he has been remanded in the present case i.e. Pirtand P.S. Case No. 15 of 2018.

¶21

The appellant has been directed to be released on bail in Pirtand P.S. Case No. 42 of 2008 vide order dated 08.12.2021 passed in B.A. No. 11711 of 2021 and subsequently he has been directed to be released on bail in Pirtand P.S. Case No. 45 of 2008 vide order dated 18.04.2024 in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1643 of 2023 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court.

¶22

Admittedly, appellant has been remanded in the present case while he was in judicial custody in Pirtand P.S. Case No. 45 of 2008.

¶23

This Court has gone through the impugned order wherein the reference of para 7, 15 and 16 of the case diary has been made but reference of the aforesaid paragraphs have only been made in support of the prosecution version but what is the culpability of the appellant, that has not been disclosed in the impugned order.

¶24

The appellant has already been granted regular bail in Pirtand P.S. Case No. 42 of 2008 and 45 of 2008 and, as such, consideration, which has been made by the learned Court with respect to the criminal antecedent of the appellant cannot be said to be proper.

¶25

Considering the aforesaid fact, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case where the impugned order needs to be interfered with.

¶26

Accordingly, the order dated 09.07.2024 passed in M.C.A. No. 1099 of 2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih in connection with Pirtand P.S. Case No. 15 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1623 of 2018, is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶27

In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.

¶28

In consequence thereof, the appellant, above named, is directed

¶29

3 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1082 of 2024

¶30

A.Mohanty

¶31

to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih in connection with Pirtand P.S. Case No. 15 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1623 of 2018, subject to the condition that one of the bailors must be close relative and the appellant will cooperate in the trial and shall appear on each and every date before the learned trial court, failing which, the learned trial court is at liberty to take appropriate course in accordance with law.

¶32

Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of.

¶33

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶34

(Navneet Kumar, J.)

¶35

4 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1082 of 2024

Charka Hembram Alias Charka Marandi Alias Kallu v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Charka Hembram Alias Charka Marandi Alias Kallu v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabhakar Kumar Alias Dr Prabhakar Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Adesh Ganjhu Alias Mangra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anischay Ganjhu Vs the National Investigating Agency, New Delhi

Chandan Goswami Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manoj Kumar Agarwalla Vs Fertilizer Corporation of India through Its General Manager

Mukesh Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand