Bhikhan Ganjhu Alias Deepak Kumar Ganjhu Alias Netajee Alias Dipak Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.866 of 2024

-----

Bhikhan Ganjhu @ Deepak Kumar Ganjhu @ Netajee @ Dipak Kumar, aged about 42 years, s/o late Bandhu Ganjhu @ Budhan Ganjhu, r/o village- Vijan, PO-Bahera, PS-Piparwar, District-Chatra (Jharkhand)

¶5

… … Appellant

¶6

¶7

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

¶8

¶9

For the Appellant : Mr. Sahil, Advocate Mr. Saurabh Narayan, Advocate

¶10

For the Respondent : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, A.P.P.

¶11

¶12

Order No.5 / Dated:12^th November, 2024

¶13

1. The instant appeal under section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 has been directed against the order dated 09.05.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Chatra in Misc. Cr. Appeal No.666 of 2024 whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with S.T. No.268 of 2023 arising out of Piparwar P.S. Case No.36 of 2019 registered for the offence under Sections 385, 386, 387, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 17(1) (2) of C.L.A. Act and Sections 16, 17, 20, 23 of U.A.P Act has been rejected.

¶14

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that it is a case where the appellant has falsely been implicated.

¶15

3. The submission has also been made that no case has been made out against the appellant because nothing incriminating has been recovered and seized from his conscious possession. It has further been submitted that the appellant has no concern with the present crime and on the basis of the confessional statement of the co-accused persons, he

¶16

2

¶17

has been apprehended in the present case. It has further been submitted that the appellant has neither been arrested on the spot nor he has concerned with any banned organization.

¶18

4. The further submission has been made on behalf of the appellant that the co-accused, namely, Surendra Ganjhu @ Sushant Bhokta, has been granted bail vide order dated 06.03.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.1467 of 2023 by this Court and another coaccused, namely, Adesh Ganjhu @ Mangra Ganjhu @ Aadesh Ganjhu has been granted bail vide order dated 12.03.2021 passed in B.A No.2721 of 2021 by a Bench of this Court.

¶19

5. It is submitted that the case of the present appellant is based on the similar footing as of the aforesaid co-accused persons, as such, the appellant may be granted bail.

¶20

6. It has further been submitted that the appellant is in custody since 26.04.2022. It has also been contended that a charge-sheet has already been submitted in the present case.

¶21

7. Based on the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order may be interfered with. 8. While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant by submitting that in the case-diary, there is sufficient and cogent material against the appellant in the alleged crime.

¶22

9. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across the impugned order rejecting the prayer for regular bail of the appellant and the orders granting bail to the co-accused persons, namely, Surendra Ganjhu @ Sushant Bhokta passed in Criminal Appeal

¶23

3

¶24

(D.B.) No.1467 of 2023 and Adesh Ganjhu @ Mangra Ganjhu @ Aadesh Ganjhu in B.A No.2721 of 2021.

¶25

10. It appears from the materials available on record that the coaccused persons, namely, Surendra Ganjhu @ Sushant Bhokta, has been granted bail vide order dated 06.03.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.1467 of 2023 by this Court and another co-accused, namely, Adesh Ganjhu @ Mangra Ganjhu @ Aadesh Ganjhu has been granted bail vide order dated 12.03.2021 passed in B.A No.2721 of 2021 by a Bench of this Court.

¶26

11. This Court, on consideration of the fact that the co-accused persons against whom there was similar allegation have been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1467 of 2023 and in B.A No.2721 of 2021, is of the view that the impugned order needs to be interfered with.

¶27

12. Accordingly, the order impugned dated 09.05.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Chatra in Misc. Cr. Appeal No.666 of 2024 in connection with S.T. No. 268 of 2023 arising out of Piparwar P.S. Case No.36 of 2019, is, hereby, quashed and set aside.

¶28

13. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.

¶29

14. 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-IV, Chatra in connection with S.T. No. 268 of 2023 arising out of Piparwar P.S. Case No.36 of 2019, subject to the conditions that the appellant shall cooperate in the trial and shall not absent himself on the date fixed

¶30

4

¶31

without any cogent cause and shall not commit offence of the like nature. In failure, the learned trial court shall have liberty to pass

¶32

appropriate order in accordance with law so that trial be not hindered.

¶33

15. I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

¶34

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶35

Sudhir