Tinku Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 491 of 2024

Tinku Singh, aged about 34 years, Son of Devi Lal Singh, Resident of village-Lowadih, High Tension Ground, Behind Sai Dharamshala, P.O.Lowadih, P.S. Namkum, District, Ranchi.

¶3

Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent

¶4

¶5

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

¶6

-------For the Appellant : Mr. Amit Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, APP --------

¶7

Order No. 04 / Dated: 1^st October, 2024

¶8

The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 21.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional Judicial CommissionerXVIII-cum-Special Judge, A.T.S, Ranchi in A.T.S. P.S. Case No.05 of 2023 corresponding to A.T.S. Court Case No.03/2023 being Misc. Criminal Application No.876 of 2024, whereby and wherein prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with A.T.S. P.S. Case No.05 of 2023, (Misc. Criminal Application No.876 of 2024) registered under Sections 25(1AA), 25(6), 25(7), 26/35 of the Arms Act has been rejected.

¶9

It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that prayer for bail has been rejected by this Court in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1518 of 2023 vide order dated 06^th December, 2023.

¶10

The prayer has been renewed on the basis of long custody i.e. of 16 months. It has been submitted that although the trial is going on but his custody is since long and hence the prayer has been renewed but aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the learned trial Court.

¶11

It has been contended that although two criminal antecedents has been shown against the appellant but one criminal antecedent has been settled in the Lok Adalat.

¶12

While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer

¶13

for bail.

¶14

This Court after having heard the learned counsel for the parties and while considering, has found that on the earlier occasion, the prayer for bail has been rejected vide order dated 06^th December, 2023 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1518 of 2023 and the prayer for bail has been made on the ground of custody of 16 months.

¶15

Considering the aforesaid fact, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case where the impugned order needs to be interfered with.

¶16

Accordingly, the order dated 21.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVIII-cum-Special Judge, A.T.S, Ranchi in A.T.S. P.S. Case No.05 of 2023 corresponding to A.T.S. Court Case No.03/2023 being Misc. Criminal Application No.876 of 2024, is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶17

In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.

¶18

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 Judicial Commissioner-XVIII-cum-Special Judge, A.T.S., Ranchi in connection with A.T.S. P.S. Case No.05 of 2023, (Misc. Criminal Application No.876 of 2024) 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.

¶19