Dismissed

Yakub Kerketta v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC22 Jan 2024Cr.A(DB)/798/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Division Bench dismissed the appeal against the rejection of regular bail on three grounds of arms manufacture. The court held it has exclusive jurisdiction under the NIA Act despite a prior Single Judge order. The trial was interfered by the appellant's antecedents and evidence stage progress.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed.

Yakub Kerketta Vs the State of Jharkhand — Narcotics (NDPS) | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No.798 of 2023

¶2

Yakub Kerketta age about 30 years S/O Fransis Kerketta R/O

¶3

Village- Murumkela Chamartoli P.O. & P.S.- Kamdara District-

Gumla (Jharkhand)

…… Appellant

Versus

The State of Jharkhand ……Respondent

¶8

----------

¶9

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

¶10

-----

¶11

For the Appellants : Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra , Advocate

¶12

Order No.13/ Dated:22.01.2024

¶13

This appeal is filed under Section 21(4) of the N.I.A Act. directed against the order dated 14.02.2023 passed by learned I/C Additional Sessions Judge II, Gumla passed in B.P. No. 182 of 2023 whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail of the appellant in connection with to S.T. No. 213 of 2018 arising out of Kamdara P.S. Case No. 31 of 2017 (Spt. G.R.-I 689 of 2017) registered under Sections 147 148, 149, 307, 353, 420, 414 of the Indian Penal Code, has been rejected.

¶14

It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that there is no specific allegations have been levelled against him in the FIR or any material that has come in the investigation. Charge sheet has been submitted. It has further been contended that one of the co-accused person, namely, Dhullu Topno @ Lara @ Dhullu Munda has been granted bail by the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in B.A. No. 11600 of 2021 vide order dated 28.02.2022.

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order needs to be interfered with as the matter has not been accepted by the concerned

¶16

-2-

¶17

court while considering the prayer for regular bail as antecedent fall in the pre arrest bail.

¶18

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent State of Jharkhand has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that the appellant is having 13 criminal antecedents in different police station under Gumla District pertaining to the heinous offences. The specific allegation against the appellant against those cases also revealed the fact that the appellant is a member of the banned extremist organization (PLFI). It has further been contended that the appellant was absconding and therefore the trial has also hampered. The appellant at the stage of execution of process issued under Section 83 Cr.p.c. of the has only been taken into custody. It has further been contended that trial is at progress and is at the stage of evidence and by this stage if the appellant will be released from the judicial custody the same will again hinder the expeditious disposal of the trial including the other criminal cases which is still pending.

¶19

Learned counsel for the State in view of the aforesaid ground has submitted that since the learned I/C Additional Sessions Judge-II, Gumla has taken into consideration the aforesaid fact while rejecting the prayer for regular bail and the same cannot be said to suffer from any illegality.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶21

Perused the finding of the record of the learned trial court while considering the prayer for regular bail, case diary and the counter affidavit.

¶22

The ground has been taken by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no specific allegation as alleged and he has not been arrested from the spot. On the basis of confession he has been implicated in the instant case. He has further taken the ground of release of one of the Co-accused, namely, Dhullu Topno @ Lara @ Dhullu Munda vide order dated 28.02.2022, passed in B.A. No. 11600 of 2021.

¶23

-3-

¶24

This Court is of the view that so far as the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant by putting reliance upon the order dated 28.02.2022 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in B.A. No. 11600 of 2021 is concerned the same was passed in exercise of power conferred under Section 439 Cr.p.c. Now it is well settled that under Section 439 Cr,p.c. the Court of Session has also got concurrent jurisdiction and wherein there is no requirement by the High Court if the prayer for bail of the person concerned has been rejected by the Court of Session in exercise of power conferred under Section 439 Cr.p.c. but the matter has now been changed after the aforesaid offences has become brought under the fall of the N.I.A. Act making these offences under the fold of the severe offences and as such now the matter regarding the rejection or allowing the bail application is to be heard by the Division Bench of this High Court in view of provision of Section 21(4) of the N.I.A Act, 2008.

¶25

The law regarding jurisdiction of appellate court is well settled whereby and whereunder it has been decided that the appellate court is required to hear the affirm decision. The reason for doing that in context of the power which is to be exercised by the appellate court under Section 21(4) of the N.I.A Act, 2008 is that the appellate court is to look into the propriety and illegality and the propriety of the decision taken by the concerned court while considering the prayer for regular bail so as to come to the conclusion the availability of error or an illegality committed by him. This Court considering the aforesaid power to be exercised by the appellate court and coming to the impugned order where apart from the material collected by the investigating agency in course of the investigation as referred in para nos. 2, 4, 32, 39, 52, 62 & 66. It is evident that the name of the appellant has been disclosed by the apprehended person from whose possession the incriminating material like double barrel gun loaded with 12 bore live cartridge and empty casing along with 5 rounds of 12 bore cartridges kept in belt and a bag

¶26

-4-

¶27

containing several diaries pertaining to naxal transactions have been found. The learned court has also considered the antecedents of the appellant as brought to the notice of the concerned court regarding 11 pending cases herein, the reference of 13 cases have been referred in the case diary.

¶28

The learned court has taken into consideration the thirteen number of cases of the like nature pending against him.

¶29

As has been referred as above that the appellate Court in exercise of the power by some interference in the impugned order, any other reference placed on record but herein the fact of pending cases which is 13 in number is now to be seen. This Court is of the view that taking into consideration the antecedents of the appellant and also the trial has already been progressed and is at the stage of evidence, the learned court has taken such reasons in rejecting the prayer for regular bail. Accordingly, this appeal is fit to be dismissed.

¶30

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶31

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶32

Rajnish/

Yakub Kerketta v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yakub Kerketta v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Director Csir Cimfr (Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research) through Alok Sharma Vs Mayuresh Dash

Budheshwar Oraon and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar Now Jharkhand and Ors.

Arati Gupta Vs the State of Bihar Now Jharkhnd and Ors.

The Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Coal and Ors. Vs Smt Jayanti Choudhary and Ors.

The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Human Resources Development Department Vs Sobhnath Sahu

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Ors. Vs Ms Shanker Enterprises Represented through Proprietor Dinanath Prasad