Allowed

Joseph Malto v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC19 Mar 2024Cr.A(DB)/1312/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against rejection of regular bail in a case involving recovery of explosives from premises rented out by the appellant to co-accused. The court noted parity with bailed co-accused, long custody and no antecedents, set aside the impugned order and granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail bond Rs.10,000 with two like sureties; release on bail with conditions including trial cooperation and a close-relative surety.

Joseph Malto Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1312 of 2023

¶3

Joseph Malto … … … ... ... ... Appellant

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand … … … … ... Respondent

¶6

¶7

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

¶8

¶9

For the Appellant: Ms. Leena Mukherjee, Advocate For the State: Mr. Gautam Rakesh, A.P.P.

¶10

¶11

06/Dated: 19^th March, 2024

¶12

1) In terms of the order dated 29^th January, 2024, the report has been submitted by the learned Registrar General by calling for explanation from the Assistant Registrar, Cr. Appeal Section, before whom the explanations given by one Md. Abdul Hasan, Dealing Assistant and Mr. Pawan Kumar Sinha, Section Officer of the Cr. Appeal Section have been submitted.

¶13

2) It has been reported by these personnel that the work of Section Officer in the Cr. Appeal Section has been allocated to Mr. Pawan Kumar Sinha in the middle of December, 2023 and the work of Dealing Assistant has been allocated to Md. Abdul Hassan in the month of September, 2023. This is their first mistake which, according to them, has occurred inadvertently. Therefore, the unqualified apology has been sought for the inconvenience caused to this Court. 3) However, prima facie it appears that whatever excuse has been given by the personnel of the concerned Section appears to be not acceptable reason being that irrespective of the date of posting, it is expected from each one discharging their duties in the concerned Section to be more vigilant while sending the file before the concerned Court. There cannot be excuse only on the ground that the mistake being first one is to be accepted. However, this Court is of the view

¶14

¶15

that such a mistake will be first and last mistake, therefore, the persons are directed to be more vigilant in future.

¶16

4) It is equally worth referring herein that the responsibility in committing any mistake is equally upon the Dealing Assistant, the Section Officer and the Assistant Register. Therefore, they are cautioned to be more careful in future. 5) Let this order be communicated to the personnel concerned. Cr. Appeal No.1312 of 2023

¶17

6) The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is directed against the order dated 15.04.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Sahibganj in B.P. No. 141 of 2023, whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with Biro (J) P.S. Case No. 55 of 2023 registered under Sections 414/34 of the I.P.C. and 3/4/5 of the Explosive substance Act has been rejected.

¶18

7) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case on the ground of false, frivolous and afterthought story with ulterior motive. It has been submitted that as per the allegation, the recovery of explosive substance has been said to be made in the house of the appellant, but the specific case of the appellant is that the said house was already rented to the other co-accused persons, namely, Sheoji Yadav, Pradyuman Yadav and Vikash Yadav. It has been contended that accused Vikash Yadav and Pradyuman Yadav have been granted privilege of pre-arrest bail while co-accused Sheoji Yadav has been granted regular bail. Further submission has been made that the appellant has no criminal antecedent and he is languishing in judicial custody since 16^th March, 2023. The charge-sheet has already been submitted and as such, there is occasion for tampering with the

¶19

¶20

evidence and, therefore, it is a fit case where the appeal may be allowed.

¶21

8) On the other hand, Mr. Gautam Rakesh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. The ground has been taken that the case of the appellant is different to that of the other co-accused persons, namely, Sheoji Yadav, Pradyuman Yadav and Vikash Yadav, as the explosive substance has been recovered from the residential premises of the appellant and hence, no benefit is to be granted to the appellant mainly on the ground that the other co-accused persons have been directed to be enlarged either on pre-arrest bail or regular bail.

¶22

9) This Court has heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court. This Court has also gone through the case diary as also the affidavit-inobjection.

¶23

10) As per the prosecution version, the explosive substance has been said to be recovered from the residential premises of the appellant, but it has come in the course of investigation that the said residential house was rented to the other co-accused persons, namely, Sheoji Yadav, Pradyuman Yadav and Vikash Yadav who are the persons who had kept the explosive substance in the house. The fact of grant of pre-arrest bail in favour of Pradyuman Yadav and Vikash Yadav as well as regular bail in favour of co-accused Sheoji Yadav has not been disputed by the learned State Counsel.

¶24

11) Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking together the period of custody since the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 16^th March, 2023, as also that the charge-sheet has already been submitted and the appellant has no

¶25

¶26

criminal antecedent, this Court is of the view that the impugned order needs to be interfered with.

¶27

12) Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned order and the appellant, named above, 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Sahibganj in connection with Borio (J) P.S. Case No. 55 of 2023, subject to the condition that the appellant will cooperate in the trial and shall appear on each & every date before the learned Trial Court, failing which the Trial Court shall be at liberty to take appropriate course in accordance with and; further subject to the condition that one of the bailers should be a close relative of the appellant, which has to be accompanied by an affidavit justifying that such bailor is close relative of the appellant.

¶28

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶29

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

¶30

Manoj/-

Joseph Malto v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joseph Malto 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

Jitendra Kumar Rajak Alias Murari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Suman Tiwari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Advocates Association (Regd) Jharkhand High Court through Its General Secretary Navin Kumar Vs Union of India through Deptt of Financial Services

Vikash Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Sitaram Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand

J Sharma Vs Union of India through Its Secretary Ministry of Steel