Dismissed

Jitendra Kumar Rajak Alias Murari v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC18 Mar 2024Cr.A(DB)/80/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appeal challenging the rejection of regular bail under the NIA Act and Arms Act involving alleged Naxalite activities was dismissed. The bench upheld the trial court's order, citing red-handed arrest, recovery of incriminating materials, and criminal antecedents. No interference was required.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; order dated 14.12.2023 rejecting regular bail stands maintained.

Jitendra Kumar Rajak Alias Murari Vs the State of Jharkhand — Narcotics (NDPS) | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 80 of 2024 Jitendra Kumar Rajak @ Murari ..… Appellant

¶2

Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent

¶3

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

¶4

For the Appellant : Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, APP

¶5

Order No.04/ Dated: 18.03.2024

¶6

The instant appeal filed under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 14.12.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chatra in B.P. No. 868 of 2023, by which the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with Piparwar P.S. Case No. 49 of 2023, registered under Sections 25(1-AA)/ 25 (1-B) a/ 26/ 26(ii)/35 of Arms Act, 1959 and Section 17(i) (ii) Criminal Law Amendment Act, has been rejected.

¶7

It has been alleged against the appellant that he has been arrested red handed at the spot along with other co-accused persons.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. It has been submitted that except some Parcha no recovery from the possession of appellant is said to be incriminating in the nature.

¶9

It has further been submitted that there is no nexus with the members of the banned organization, TSPC. Learned court without taking into consideration the aforesaid fact has rejected the prayer for bail. Therefore, the instant appeal has been filed.

¶10

While on the other hand learned APP appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by referring the reason deciding in the impugned order which learned court rejected the prayer for bail it has

¶11

-2-

¶12

been submitted that the appellant has been arrested at the spot along with 2 other accused who were armed with country made loaded pistol. From the possession of the appellant 22 naxal parcha “ Inkalab Jindabad” and “Majdoor Kishan Jindabad” and screen touch mobile was recovered and seized.

¶13

Learned APP based upon the aforesaid ground has submitted that since learned trial court has taken ground of arresting of the appellant from the spot along with the co-accused persons and hence the reason was assigned in addition thereto appellant is having criminal antecedent on the aforesaid ground that prayer for regular bail may be rejected the same may not be interfered with.

¶14

This Court heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across the entire case record and impugned order.

¶15

It appears from the order impugned that the appellant has been arrested on spot along with 2 other accused persons who were found with country made loaded pistol. From the possession of the accused persons, 22 naxal parchas have been recovered from which “ Inkalab Jindabad” “Mazdoor Kishan Jindabad” has been scripted. It has further been taken note that learned court below have found that they have been members of the extremist organization. It is further been taken note that one screen touch mobile phone was recovered from the appellant. The learned Court has also taken into consideration that he is a member of the extremist banned organization. It has further been taken note that the appellant is having criminal antecedent in Khalari P.S. Case No. 79 of 2019.

¶16

Therefore, this Court after considering the reason assigned in the impugned order more particularly the fact that the appellant has been apprehended from the spot along with 2 accused persons from whose

¶17

-3-

¶18

possession country made loaded pistol has been recovered. From the possession of the appellant 20 naxal parchas have been recovered.

¶19

Further, the statement as recorded in para 15 of the case diary which supported the statement of the accused persons and the instance of the pending criminal cases have been taken into consideration. Therefore, this Court is of the view that no interference is required in the order dated 14.12.2023, passed by the learned trial court.

¶20

Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed.

¶21

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶22

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

¶23

Pramanik/

Jitendra Kumar Rajak Alias Murari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Kumar Rajak Alias Murari 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

Dhananjay Singh Alias Abhimanyu Jee Vs the State of Jharkhand

Began Hembrom Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Wakil Alam Vs Ishrat Fatma

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

Suman Tiwari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Advocates Association (Regd) Jharkhand High Court through Its General Secretary Navin Kumar Vs Union of India through Deptt of Financial Services