Dismissed¶20

Sengrai Cherwa v. the State of Jharkhand

Bail – Regular bail

Jharkhand HC21 Mar 2024Cr.A(DB)/633/2023

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail rejection appeal under Section 21(4) NIA Act, Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 633 of 2023, High Court of Jharkhand; Jaraikela P.S. Case No. 07 of 2010 / G.R. No. 133 of 2020; alleged MCC (banned organization) membership; risk of tampering with evidence and winning over witnesses; custody since 27.02.2020; 26 accused firing on police party per co-accused confession; direction to SP West Singhbhum at Chaibasa to produce witnesses and expedite trial; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellant; the order rejecting regular bail was left undisturbed and the appeal was dismissed. The Court additionally directed the Superintendent of Police, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa to ensure appearance of witnesses so that the trial may be expedited. ¶20

Sengrai Cherwa Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 23.01.2023 of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa rejecting the appellant's prayer for regular bail required interference in this appeal preferred under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

Considering the possibility of tampering with the evidence and winning over the witnesses, since the appellant is said to have terror in that area, the impugned order rejecting regular bail requires no interference by this Court.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

On perusal of the First Information Report and the material collected in investigation, the Court recorded that the accused persons apprehended from the spot stated that altogether 26 accused persons including the present appellant were involved in indiscriminating firing upon the police party and fled away in course of counter firing.

¶18

Key takeaways

The instant appeal fails and is dismissed.ratio¶20
As per the status report dated 16.03.2024, since the case is at the stage of evidence and no witness has turned up for examination, the Court directed the Superintendent of Police, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa to ensure the appearance of witnesses in the trial so that the trial may be expedited.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — Regular bail — Appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against rejection of bail by order dated 23.01.2023 of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in B.P. No. 11 of 2023, arising out of Jaraikela P.S. Case No. 07 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. No. 133 of 2020 (offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 353, 120B, 414, 121, 121A, 122 IPC; Sections 25(I-B)a, 26, 27, 35 Arms Act; Sections 3/4/5 Explosive Substance Act; Section 17 CLA Act; Sections 10/13/16/20 U.A.P. Act). Appellant in judicial custody since 27.02.2020; State opposed bail alleging membership of the banned organization MCC, likelihood of tampering with evidence and winning over of witnesses (trial at 'Evidence' stage), and similar antecedents (Manoharpur P.S Case No. 15 of 2005); co-accused confessional statements indicated 26 accused including the appellant fired upon the police party. Held: impugned order requires no interference; appeal dismissed; Superintendent of Police, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa directed to ensure appearance of witnesses so that the trial may be expedited (status report dated 16.03.2024 showed no witness examined).

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 633 of 2023

¶3

Sengrai Cherwa … … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent -------

¶4

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

¶5

-----For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Ranjan Srivastav, Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P

¶6

¶7

Order No. 07 : Dated 21^st March, 2024

¶8

1. The instant criminal 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 23.01.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in B.P. No. 11 of 2023 arising out of Jaraikela P.S. Case No. 07 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. No. 133 of 2020 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 353, 120B, 414, 121, 121A, 122 of the Indian Penal Code; under Section 25(I-B)a, 26, 27, 35 of the Arms Act; under Section 3/4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act; under Section 17 of the CLA Act and under Section 10/13/16/20 of the U.A.P. Act, whereby and where under, the appellant prayer for regular bail has been rejected.

¶9

2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that there is no specific attributability said to be committed by the appellant but even then he is languishing in judicial custody

¶10

¶11

since 27.02.2020. The ground has been taken that save and except the confessional statement of the accused persons, no other incriminating material has come against the appellant. 3. While on the other hand, Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Special P.P. appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand, has opposed the prayer for bail. It has been contended that the appellant is the member of MCC, a banned organization, which is actively operating in the State of Jharkhand.

¶12

4. It has further been contended that since appellant is the member of the aforesaid banned organization having terror in the entire area, hence there is every likelihood of the tampering with the evidence and winning over the witnesses if the appellant will be directed to be released on bail since as per the status report the case is at the stage of ‘Evidence’.

¶13

5. Ground of criminal antecedent has also been taken stating that the appellant has been remanded in this case from Manoharpur P.S Case No. 15 of 2005, which shows that the appellant is having criminal antecedents of similar type of offence.

¶14

6. So far as the involvement of the appellant in the present case is concerned, as per the allegation and confessional statement of co-accused persons, who were arrested from the spot namely, Suresh Guria and Kujri Gagrai have disclosed that altogether 26 accused persons including the present appellant were involved in indiscriminating firing upon the

¶15

¶16

police party and fled away in course of counter firing. Larger number of incriminating articles including arms and ammunitions were seized from the spot.

¶17

7. Learned Spl. P.P. based upon the aforesaid fact has submitted that it is not a fit case to interfere with the impugned order rejecting the prayer for regular bail. 8. This Court has considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, gone across the finding recorded by learned trial court while considering the prayer for regular bail as also the case diary based upon which the affidavit in objection has been filed.

¶18

9. This Court on perusal of First Information Report as also the material collected in course of investigation as mentioned has found that the accused persons who have been apprehended from the spot has stated that altogether 26 accused persons including the present appellant were involved in indiscriminating firing upon the police party and fled away in course of counter firing.

¶19

10. Considering the submission made on behalf of learned State counsel that there is possibility of tampering with the evidence and winning over the witnesses since the petitioner has terror in that area, this Court is of the view that the impugned order requires no interference by this Court.

¶20

11. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.

¶21

¶22

12. However, as per the status report dated 16.03.2024 since the case is at the stage of evidence and no witness has turned up for examination, this Court directs the Superintendent of Police, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa to ensure the appearance of witnesses in the trial, so that the trial may be expedited.

¶23

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶24

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

¶25

Alankar/

Sengrai Cherwa v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sengrai Cherwa 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Filman Kisku Vs the State of Jharkhand

Charo Oraon Vs State of Jharkhand

Vikash Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Ramnath Kisan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Saroj Bhai Patel Vs Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions

The Union of India through the Director General Department of Posts Vs Ratan Kumar Kapoor