Adesh Ganjhu Alias Mangra Alias Aadesh Ganjhu Vs the State of Jharkhand

1. The instant appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 for setting aside the order dated 17.11.2022 passed in Bail Petition No. 424 of 2022 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge I, Latehar in connection with Balumath P.S. Case No. 150 of 2022 for the offences registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 399, 402, 387, 120B of the Indian Penal Code; under Section 25(I-A), 25(IB),a/26(2)/35 of the Arms Act; under Section 17 of the CLA Act and under Section 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been rejected

¶11

2. Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the instant case. It been submitted that save and except one country made pistol and one Walky-Talky nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the appellant. It has

¶12

2 -

¶13

been contended that save and except this no other evidence has come in course of investigation as would be evident from bare perusal of case diary. Further submission has been made that even trial has not yet commenced and the appellant is in judicial custody since 23.07.2022. Therefore, the learned court while considering the prayer for regular bail since has not considered these aspects of the matter, the impugned order suffers from error and hence not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶14

3. While on the other hand, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P.P appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail based upon the material collected in course of investigation as recorded in the counter affidavit.

¶15

4. It has been contended by referring to paragraph 2,5,6,7,8,9, 10, 45 and 55 of the case diary as also paragraph 26 of the supplementary case diary that there are sufficient material against the appellant, therefore, the prayer for regular bail by showing interference with the impugned order is fit to be rejected.

¶16

5. It has further been submitted that there are altogether 19 criminal antecedents against the appellant including the offence relating to UAP Act.

¶17

6. In response, Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that so far pending criminal cases against the appellant is concerned, as per Annexure A

¶18

3 -

¶19

to the written objection, from serial no. 13 to 17, the same is on the basis of Production Warrant meaning thereby in those cases, the appellant has not been remanded in those cases Further submission has been made in rest pending criminal cases, the appellant is either on bail or acquitted.

¶20

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone across the finding recorded by learned trial Court while rejecting the prayer for regular bail as available in the impugned as also the case diary and objection in affidavit filed on behalf of the State.

¶21

8. It appears from the prosecution story that on 22.7.2022 police party on information that the appellant and other miscreants are planning to cause explosion, firing, Dacoity and murder as the Businessmen, Contractors, D.O holders, lifters and transporters are not paying the levy amount carried out an operation. The armed Miscreants managed to flee away. The appellant was caught on the spot who disclosed his name as Adesh Ganjhu and he also disclosed that he is the member of banned organization namely T.S.P.C. On search a Country made pistol loaded with 5 live cartridges and one Walky Talky was recovered from his possession. The Police also recovered huge amount of Arms and ammunitions and hand grenades and the parts of INSAS and SLR and documents from the place where the miscreants were planning to commit to commit explosion, firing, Dacoity

¶22

4 -

¶23

and murder. The appellant has also admitted that despite murder of Dilsher Khan Businessmen, Contractors, D.O holders, lifters and transporters were not paying the levy amount in Balumath area, therefore they have assembled to cause big incident to establish their terror in the area.

¶24

9. It has come at para 2 of the case diary that as per the seizure list no. 1 seizure of a country made pistol of 7.65 mm loaded with 5 live cartridges was recovered from the possession of the appellant. Further, as per Seizure list no. 2 a huge amount of Arms and Ammunition including the HE Hand grenade, Adapters of Walky Talkies, parts of Insas Riffle and SLR and other incriminating articles were recovered from said Siram Forest. From perusal of paragraph 5 of the case diary, it appears that the appellant in his confessional statement has stated the entire manner of occurrence and the reason for assembling at the place of occurrence.

¶25

10. From paragraph 55 of the case diary it reveals that during supervision made by Superintendent of Police, Latehar, the offence under Section 10, 13, 16, 20 and 23 of the UAP Act was added and as per supplementary case diary, the Department of Home, Prison and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand has accorded Sanction for prosecution for prosecuting under Section 13(1) of the UAP Act on 27.10.2023.

¶26

5 -

¶27

11. Issue of criminal antecedents, which are 19 in number, has also been raised. Learned counsel for the appellant though has submitted that from serial nos. 13 to 17 only Production Warrant has been issued and for rest of criminal antecedents submission has been made that either the appellant is on bail or acquitted in those cases but no document has been placed on record to substantiate this argument.

¶28

12. This Court considering the fact as per allegation leveled in the FIR that the appellant was found to be the member of banned organization and as per the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Arup Bhuiyan Vs. State of Assam &

¶29

Anr. 2023 (8) SCC 745 , being a member of the banned organization also attract the penal provision as contained under Section 13 of the U.A.(P) Act, 1967. Further a country made pistol of 7.65 mm loaded with 5 live cartridges was recovered from the possession of the appellant and huge quantity of Arms and Ammunitions were recovered from the possession of the appellant.

¶30

13. Further against the appellant many criminal cases of like nature are pending and trial in most of the cases is in progress. In the instant case sanction has been granted as required under Section 45 of the Act, 1967 as such if at this stage the appellant will be directed to be released on bail then the trial in the pending criminal cases will be adversely

¶31