Nirbhik Hembrom Alias Luxman Da Alias Luxman Alias Raman Hembrom Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 768 of 2024

---------

Nirbhik Hembrom @ Luxman Da @ Luxman @ Raman Hembrom, aged about 34 years, son of Late Sanika Hembrom, Resident of Village-Cherwalore, P.O. & P.S. Kiriburu, District-Singhbhum West.

¶5

… … Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent

¶8

---------

¶9

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

¶10

---------- For the Appellant : Mr. Vishal Kr. Tiwary, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, APP

¶11

-----------

¶12

05/Dated: 17^th October, 2024

¶13

The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, West Singhbhum, at Chaibasa in Misc. Cr. Application No. 1596 of 2023 (S.T. Case No. 275 of 2023), by which the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected in connection with Manoharpur P.S. Case No. 35 of 2006 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 307 of the Indian Penal Code, under Sections 25(1-b)a/26/27/35 of the Arms Act, under Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act, under section 17 of the C.L.A. Act and under Section 13 of the U.A.P. Act

¶14

It has been contended that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the instant case as also no incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the appellant.

¶15

It has also been contended that several co-accused persons, namely, Nirmala Kandulna @ Sanjivini Devi; Nishant Daa @ Deepak Munda @ Nishant Munda @ Tepa and; Varun Topno @ Varun @ Arun @ Natwar have been granted bail vide orders dated 13.03.2018; 04.09.2019 and; 23.04.2024 passed in B.A. No. 6448 of 2017; B.A. No. 1514 of 2019 and; Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 412 of 2023.

¶16

1

¶17

It has been contended that the appellant in languishing in judicial custody since 02.02.2023 and the chargesheet has also been submitted and the charge has been framed on 29.02.2024.

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid premise, has submitted that the instant appeal also deserves to be allowed so that the appellant be released on bail.

¶19

While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail so far as the involvement as per the allegation against the appellant is concerned but he is fair enough to admit the fact that the identically placed co-accused persons, namely, Nirmala Kandulna @ Sanjivini Devi; Nishant Daa @ Deepak Munda @ Nishant Munda @ Tepa and; Varun Topno @ Varun @ Arun @ Natwar have been directed to be released on bail. Such submission has been made by going through the orders appended as Annexure-2 series.

¶20

This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 02.02.2023 and the chargesheet has also been submitted and the charge has been framed as also taking into consideration that the co-accused person, namely, Nirmala Kandulna @ Sanjivini Devi; Nishant Daa @ Deepak Munda @ Nishant Munda @ Tepa and; Varun Topno @ Varun @ Arun @ Natwar have been granted bail vide orders dated 13.03.2018; 04.09.2019 and; 23.04.2024 passed in B.A. No. 6448 of 2017; B.A. No. 1514 of 2019 and; Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 412 of 2023 and the same having not been disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, as such, is of the view that there is no reason to take distinct view with respect to the case of the present appellant.

¶21

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.

¶22

Accordingly, the order dated 08.04.2024 passed in Misc. Cr. Application No. 1596 of 2023 (S.T. Case No. 275 of 2023) in

¶23

2

¶24

connection with Manoharpur P.S. Case No. 35 of 2006, is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶25

In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.

¶26

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 Sessions Judge-I, West Singhbhum, at Chaibasa in connection with in connection with Manoharpur P.S. Case No. 35 of 2006 (S.T. Case No. 275 of 2023) 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 and; further subject to the condition that one of the bailors should be a close relative of the appellant, which is to be accompanied by affidavit justifying that such bailor is close relative of the appellant.

¶27

Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of.

¶28

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶29

(Navneet Kumar, J.)

¶30

Saurabh /-

¶31

3

Nirbhik Hembrom Alias Luxman Da Alias Luxman Alias Raman Hembrom v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirbhik Hembrom Alias Luxman Da Alias Luxman Alias Raman Hembrom 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

Chandan Goswami Vs the State of Jharkhand

Charka Hembram Alias Charka Marandi Alias Kallu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manoj Kumar Agarwalla Vs Fertilizer Corporation of India through Its General Manager

Mrityunjay Kumar Singh Alias Mrityunjay Kumar Alias Sonu Singh Vs Union of India through the Superintendent of Police National Investigation Agency

Siraj Alias Sirajuddin Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nabirul Islam Vs the State of Jharkhand