Santosh Oraon Vs State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1238 of 2024

------

Santosh Oraon, aged 30 years S/o Sukh Ram Oraon, R/o villageMadma, P.O.Pandhari, P.S.-Chandwa, District – Latehar (Jharkhand) …. Appellant

¶4

…. Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Jharkhand .... Respondent

¶7

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

¶8

------ For the Appellant : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P.

¶9

------ 03/Dated: 01.10.2024

¶10

1. The instant appeal preferred under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, is directed against the order dated 22.08.2024 passed in Misc. Cr. Application no.1151/2024 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Chatra in connection with S.T. Case No. 261/2023 arising out of Piparwar P.S. Case No. 35/2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 438/2021 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 379, 427, 504, 506 of I.P.C., 17(i)(ii) of C.L.A. Act and 3/4 of Explosive Substance Act whereby and whereunder, the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been rejected.

¶11

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that although the prayer for bail of the appellant has been dealt with, which has been rejected vide order dated 31.01.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1367 of 2023, which is appended as Annexure 4 to the paper book, but subsequent to the same, one of the co-accused namely, Ramjit Oraon, having 13 criminal antecedents, has already been directed to be released on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court

¶12

¶13

vide order dated 30.04.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1185 of 2023.

¶14

3. It has further been contended that there is no recovery of arms and ammunition from the possession of the appellant and he is languishing in judicial custody since 16.07.2021 and the trial is not progressing.

¶15

4. While on the other hand, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by taking the ground that altogether 17 criminal cases are pending against the appellant. However, he is fair enough to admit the fact that the case of the aforesaid co-accused person as referred above, who has already been directed to be released on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court, is identically placed to that of the case of the present appellant.

¶16

5. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court, is of the view that identically placed co-accused person, namely, Ramjit Oraon, having 13 criminal antecedent, has already been directed to be released on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.04.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1185 of 2023. Therefore, there is no reason to take distinct view, so far as the case of the present appellant is concerned.

¶17

6. Considering the aforesaid fact, this Court is of the view that the impugned order needs to be interfered with.

¶18

7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22.08.2024 passed in Misc. Cr. Application no. 1151/2024 in connection with S.T. Case No. 261/2023 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Chatra arising out of Piparwar P.S. Case No. 35/2020 is hereby quashed and

¶19

¶20

set aside.

¶21

8. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.

¶22

9. In consequence thereof, the appellant, above named, is directed 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 Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Chatra in connection with S.T. Case No. 261/2023 arising out of Piparwar P.S. Case No. 35/2020, subject to the conditions that the appellant shall co-operate in the trial and shall not absent himself on the date fixed without any cogent cause; and shall not commit offence of the like nature. In failure, the learned court shall have liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law so that trial, be not hindered and further that one of the bailors should be close relative of the appellant, which is to be accompanied by affidavit justifying that such bailor is close relative of the appellant.

¶23

10. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of.

¶24

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶25

(Navneet Kumar, J.)

¶26

Samarth/-

¶27

Santosh Oraon v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Oraon v. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union Public Service Commissio Vs Shri Pankaj Kumar Mishra And Ors.

Nand Kishore Prasad Sinha Vs Personnel And Adminis Reform

Atish Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Tinku Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sittu Upadhyay Alias Abhishek Upadhyay Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prakash Mandal Vs the Union of India through the Secretary Cum D G Deptt of Posts