Allowed

Jainath Kherwar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC18 Oct 2024Cr.A(DB)/1300/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal against rejection of regular bail in a UAPA case where complicity surfaced only from a co-accused's confession. The court condoned the filing delay, quashed the bail-rejection order, and enlarged the appellant on bail on parity with the co-accused, noting prolonged custody and completed chargesheet.

What did the court decide?

Delay condoned; impugned bail-rejection order quashed; appellant released on bail on Rs.10,000 bond with two like sureties, subject to trial-cooperation conditions.

Jainath Kherwar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.1300 of 2024

¶2

-----

¶3

Jainath Kherwar, aged about 25 years, son of Late Budhwa Kherwar, Resident of Village-Tuimupat Jobhitoli, P.O. & P.S.-Serengdag, District-Lohardaga (Jharkhand).

¶4

… … Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent

¶7

¶8

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

¶9

------For the Appellant : Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P.

¶10

¶11

Order No. 02 / Dated 18^th October, 2024

¶12

I.A. No. 11205 of 2024

¶13

1. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 21(5) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 for condoning the delay of 61 days in preferring the instant criminal appeal.

¶14

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

3. Considering the reason assigned at paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the interlocutory application and taking into consideration the purport of Section 21(5) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, the delay of 61 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned.

¶16

4. I.A. No. 11205 of 2024 stands allowed.

¶17

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1300 of 2024

¶18

5. The instant appeal under section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 has been directed against the order dated 05.06.2024 passed by the learned

¶19

¶20

Sessions Judge, Gumla in B.P. No.442 of 2024 whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with Ghaghra P.S. Case No.03/2024 corresponding to G.R. Case No.221/2024 registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 342, 387, 435, 458, 504, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 17 of the C.L.A, Section 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act and Section 16, 18 and 20 of the U.A.P. Act, has been rejected.

¶21

6. It has been submitted that the complicity of the appellant has come on the basis of the confessional statement of co-accused person.

¶22

7. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the co-accused, namely, Sunil Oraon, on the basis of whose confession, the name of the present appellant has been surfaced, has already been directed to be enlarged on bail by the order of the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 20.06.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.425 of 2024.

¶23

8. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant on being apprehended had also confessed and save and except these incriminating circumstance, there are no other material which would indicate the complicity of the appellant in taking part in putting fire upon the vehicles.

¶24

¶25

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is in custody since 19.01.2024 and chargesheet has already been submitted and, as such, there is also no question of coming in the way of investigation or tampering with the evidence.

¶26

10. Learned counsel for the appellant, in view of aforesaid premises, has submitted that the prayer as made in the instant appeal may be considered by interfering with the order dated 05.06.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gumla in B.P. No.442 of 2024 by which the prayer for regular bail has been rejected.

¶27

11. While on the other hand, Mr. Saket Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondentState, has submitted that the allegation levelled against the appellant is serious but he is fair enough to submit that the co-accused, namely, Sunil Oraon, on the basis of whose confession, the name of the present appellant has been surfaced, has already been directed to be enlarged on bail by the order of the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 20.06.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.425 of 2024.

¶28

12. This Court, considering the fact that the identically placed co-accused person has already been directed to be released on bail and the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 19.01.2024 and since the chargesheet has

¶29

¶30

been submitted, we are of the view that the impugned order needs to be interfered with.

¶31

13. Accordingly, the order dated order dated 05.06.2024 passed in B.P. No.442 of 2024 is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶32

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

¶33

15. In consequence thereof, the appellant, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- [Ten Thousand] with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Gumla in connection with Ghaghra P.S. Case No.03/2024 corresponding to G.R. Case No.221/2024, 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 trial court shall have liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law so that trial be not hindered.

¶34

16. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of.

¶35

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶36

(Navneet Kumar, J.)

¶37

Birendra/

¶38

Jainath Kherwar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jainath Kherwar 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

Mrityunjay Kumar Singh Alias Mrityunjay Kumar Alias Sonu Singh Vs Union of India through the Superintendent of Police National Investigation Agency

Nirbhik Hembrom Alias Luxman Da Alias Luxman Alias Raman Hembrom Vs the State of Jharkhand

Siraj Alias Sirajuddin Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mahatam Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Noor Mohammad Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Birendra Chouhan Alias Gusta Alias Virender Chouhan Allias Birendra Kumar Chouhan Vs the State of Jharkhand