Allowed

Pintu Paswan Alias Sangam Paswan Alias Sarvesh Jee Alias Sudhansu v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC17 Jan 2024Cr.A(DB)/1217/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal against the rejection of regular bail, noting that identically placed co-accused had been granted bail. The impugned order was quashed and the appellant was directed to be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on regular bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each.

Pintu Paswan Alias Sangam Paswan Alias Sarvesh Jee Alias… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1217 of 2023

¶3

---------

¶4

Pintu Paswan @ Sangam Paswan @ Sarvesh Jee @ Sudhanshu, aged about 33 years, s/o Jawahar Paswan, resident of Mahrao (Pipra), P.O. + P.S. – Chharkarbandha, District-Gaya (Bihar)

¶5

.…… Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand ……. Respondent

¶8

---------

¶9

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

¶10

---------- For the Appellant : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Pandey, Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, A.P.P.

¶11

-----------

¶12

04/Dated: 17^th January, 2024

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, has submitted that the instant case is being investigated by the District Police and not by the National Investigation Agency, but, due to inadvertence, the NIA has been impleaded as party respondent no.2.

¶14

In view thereof, liberty has been sought for to delete the respondent no.2, NIA, from the arrays of the respondents.

¶15

Let necessary deletion be made in course of the day.

¶16

Let the name of Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the NIA be deleted for the present.

¶17

The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 24.06.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chatra in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.740 of 2023, by which the prayer for regular bail of the appellant arising out of Simariya P.S. Case No. 30 of 2018 registered under Sections 384, 385, 386, 387, 120(B) of IPC; under Section 17(i)(ii) of CLA Act and under Sections 16, 17, 20, 21, 23 of UAP Act, has been rejected.

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is no direct allegation of commission of offence as per the prosecution version as recorded in the First Information Report.

¶19

¶20

It has been contended that the name of the appellant has come in the instant FIR based upon the confessional statement of one Pradeep Kumar Ganjhu @ Pradeep Kr. Ganjhu from whose possession, three cell-phones and Rs.55,500/- of different denomination were recovered. Although the allegation against the appellant is that he is an active member of TPC, a banned organization, but the said Pradeep Kumar Ganjhu @ Pradeep Kr. Ganjhu 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.

¶21

It has further been contended that identically placed co-accused, namely, Ram Kumar Ganjhu @ Shekhar Ganjhu has also been directed to be released on bail by this Court vide order dated 06.04.2023 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) no. 87 of 2023, hence, the case of the appellant since is identically placed with the case of the co-accused persons, as such, he may also be directed to be released on bail by interfering with the impugned order.

¶22

While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. But, she is fair enough to submit after going through the order passed by this Court as appended as Annexure-3, that the identically placed co-accused person, namely, Ram Kumar Ganjhu @ Shekhar Ganjhu has been directed to be released on bail vide order dated 06.04.2023 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) no. 87 of 2023.

¶23

The fact about bail having been granted in favour of Pradeep Kumar Ganjhu @ Pradeep Kr. Ganjhu, from whose possession three cell-phones and Rs.55,500/- have been recovered, has also not been disputed after going through the order dated 01.08.2018 passed in B.A. No. 4487 of 2018 appended as Annexure-2.

¶24

Considering the aforesaid fact and taking into consideration the fact that the co-accused person, namely, Pradeep Kumar Ganjhu @ Pradeep Kr. Ganjhu from whose possession three cell-phones and Rs.55,500/- have been recovered and based upon whose confession, the name of the appellant along with other co-accused person has come in the FIR, 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.

¶25

¶26

Further, the identically placed co-accused persons, namely, Ram Kumar Ganjhu @ Shekhar Ganjhu, whose name has been disclosed by Pradeep Kumar Ganjhu @ Pradeep Kr. Ganjhu, has also been directed to be released on bail by this Court vide order dated 06.04.2023 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) no. 87 of 2023, therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no need to take contrary view with respect to the case of the appellant.

¶27

Accordingly, the order dated 24.06.2023 passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.740 of 2023 in connection with Simariya P.S. Case No. 30 of 2018, is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶28

In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.

¶29

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 District and Sessions Judge-I^st , Chatra in connection with Simariya P.S. Case No. 30 of 2018 subject to the condition that 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.

¶30

Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of.

¶31

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶32

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶33

Saurabh /-

Pintu Paswan Alias Sangam Paswan Alias Sarvesh Jee Alias Sudhansu v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pintu Paswan Alias Sangam Paswan Alias Sarvesh Jee Alias Sudhansu 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

Charitar Yadav Alias Suraj Yadav Alias Ramashish Yadav Alias Angad Jee Alias Chalitar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Charitar Yadav Alias Ramashish Yadav Alias Chalitar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Saddam Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ramkeshwar Oraon Alias Ram Kishor Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Urmila Trivedi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pawan Kumar Alias Pawan Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand