Sunil Kumar Alias Sunil Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 909 of 2024

------

Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Yadav, aged about 26 years, Son of Rajendra Yadav, Resident of Village-Biharo, P.O.- Jainagar, P.S.-Jainagar, District-Koderma (Jharkhand). …. Appellant

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand .... Respondent

¶6

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

¶7

------ For the Appellant : Mr. Binod Kr. Dubey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl. P.P.

¶8

------

¶9

06/Dated: 14^th October, 2024

¶10

1. The instant appeal preferred under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, is directed against the order dated 10.05.2024 passed in B.P. No. 296 of 2024 by the learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribag, in connection with Barkagaon P.S. Case No. 69 of 2024, registered for the offence under Sections 447/427/435/385/387/504/506/34 of IPC including the Section 27 Arms Act, Sections 16(1)(b)/20 U.A.P. Act and Section 17 C.L.A. Act whereby and whereunder, the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been rejected.

¶11

2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the appellant is absolutely innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant case only on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused person.

¶12

3. It has further been contended that there is no recovery of any incriminating material from the physical or conscious possession of

¶13

the appellant also he has no criminal antecedents and he is languishing in judicial custody since 27.03.2024.

¶14

4. While on the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, while vehemently opposing the prayer for bail, has submitted that the appellant has been found to be the member of the TPSC, a banned organization in the State of Jharkhand. His implication is on the basis of the confessional statement made by the co-accused person, which has been taken into consideration by the learned Court while rejecting the prayer for bail, as such the same is fit to be rejected.

¶15

5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the rival submission as also the case diary and the criminal antecedent report which has been called for vide order dated 19.09.2024 has found that the petitioner has been implicated in the case on the basis of the confessional statement and he has no criminal antecedent. There is no recovery of any incriminating material and he is languishing in judicial custody since 27.03.2024

¶16

6. Considering the aforesaid fact, this Court is of the view that the impugned order needs to be interfered with.

¶17

7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 10.05.2024 passed in B.P. No. 296 of 2024 by the learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribag is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶18

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

¶19

9. In consequence thereof, the appellant, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees

¶20

Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hazaribagh, in connection with Barkagaon P.S. Case No. 69 of 2024, subject to the conditions that the appellant shall co-operate in the trial and shall not absent himself on the date fixed without any cogent cause; and shall not commit offence of the like nature. In failure, the learned court shall have liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law so that trial, be not hindered and further that one of the bailors should be close relative of the appellant, which is to be accompanied by affidavit justifying that such bailor is close relative of the appellant.

¶21

10. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of.

¶22

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶23

(Navneet Kumar, J.)

¶24

Samarth/

Sunil Kumar Alias Sunil Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar Alias Sunil Yadav 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

Alok Kumar Katyal Vs The State Of Jharkhand Thr Principal Secretary Deptt Of Industry Mines And Geology And Ors.

Anita Tigga Vs the State of Jharkhand

Basanti Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anischay Ganjhu Vs the National Investigating Agency, New Delhi

Ranbir Kumar Singh Alias Ranbir Singh Alias Chotu Alias Joker Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sangam Ji Alias Pintu Paswan Alias Sarvesh Jee Alias Sudhanshu Ji Alias Sangam Vs the State of Jharkhand