Dhananjay Singh Alias Abhimanyu Jee Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No.197 of 2024

Dhananjay Singh @ Abhimanyu Jee ... ... Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … … … … ... Respondent ---------

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

--------For the Appellant: Mr. Rajiv N. Sahay, Advocate Mr. Sushant Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State: Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P.

¶5

¶6

02/Dated: 14^th March, 2024

¶7

1) The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is directed against the order dated 23.01.2024 passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Chatra in Misc. Cr. App. No.166 of 2024, whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with S.T. No.148 of 2019 arising out of Piparwar P.S. Case No. 45 of 2017 (G.R. No.1607 of 2017) registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 17(i)(ii) of the C.L.A. Act and 16, 18, 20 of the UAP Act has been rejected.

¶8

2) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is a case where the appellant has been falsely implicated. Further submission has been made that identically placed accused persons have been granted regular bail in B.A. Nos.1324/2019, 1778/2020, 5548/2020, 4124/2021 and 13976/2021. The ground has been taken that the learned Court has confronted with the grant of regular bail in favour of the other co-accused persons, but even, the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been rejected. The learned counsel has further submitted that the case of the other co-accused persons who have been directed to be enlarged on bail is identically placed to that the present appellant, but even then, his prayer for bail has been rejected

¶9

2

¶10

merely on the ground that the those accused persons have been granted bail by the High Court.

¶11

3) On the other hand, Mrs. Priya Shrestha, the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Jharkhand, does not dispute the fact that the other identically placed accused persons have been granted bail by the High Court but she has taken the instance of criminal antecedent of the appellant.

¶12

4) This Court has heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court in the impugned order.

¶13

5) It is evident from the order impugned that the learned Court has taken note of the orders passed by this Court granting bail in favour of the other co-accused persons in B.A. Nos.1324/2019, 1778/2020 and 4124/2021, but without giving any finding to the effect how case of the appellant is distinct to the case of other accused persons has rejected the prayer for bail. The learned Trial Court while considering the prayer for bail, however, has also taken note that the appellant is having criminal antecedent, but as has been informed by learned Spl. Public Prosecutor, the appellant has been remanded in this case from another case being Pathalgadda P.S. Case No. 39 of 2018.

¶14

6) This Court after going through the impugned order is of the considered view that the learned Trial Court while exercising the aforesaid power ought to have distinguished the case of the appellant to that of the other co-accused persons as also ought to have taken into consideration the issue of criminal antecedent before coming to the conclusion by negating the prayer for bail, but having not done so, this Court is of the view that since this Court is exercising the power of appeal, hence, the order suffers from perversity.

¶15

3

¶16

7) Resultantly, the instant appeal is allowed 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 Principal District & Sessions Judge, Chatra, in connection with in S.T. No.148 of 2019, arising out of Piparwar P.S. Case No. 45 of 2017 (G.R. No.1607 of 2017), 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.

¶17

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶18

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

¶19

Manoj/-

Dhananjay Singh Alias Abhimanyu Jee v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhananjay Singh Alias Abhimanyu Jee 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranveer Kumar Singh Alias Chottu Alias Jokar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pandu Manjhi Alias Pandu Da Alias Pandu Murmu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prmila Devi Vs Union of India through National Investigation Agency

Sukhbir Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abdul Kadir Vs the State of Jharkhand

Began Hembrom Vs the State of Jharkhand