Allowed

Odiya Surin v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC4 Oct 2024Cr.A(DB)/956/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the High Court of Jharkhand allowed the appellant's petition, quashing the order rejecting bail. The court held it a fit case for interference since a co-accused had already been granted regular bail by this Court on similar facts. The appellant was directed to be released on bail.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 19.06.2024 quashed; appellant released on bail on furnishing bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties.

Odiya Surin Vs the State of Jharkhand — Corruption | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 956 of 2024

¶3

---------

¶4

Odiya Surin @ Odeya Surin, aged about 56 years, son of Late Umida Surin @ Gumida Surin, Resident of Village-Chhota Kuida, at present resident of Village: Maradiri, Vangram, P.O. & P.S. Goilkera, 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. Shiv Shankar Kumar, APP

¶11

----------- 05/Dated: 04^th October, 2024

¶12

The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 19.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, West Singhbhum, at Chaibasa in Misc. Cr. Application No. 679 of 2024 (S.T. Case No. 216 of 2023), by which the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected in connection with Goilkera P.S. Case No. 44 of 2022 registered under Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act and under Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act.

¶13

It has been contended that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the instant case and there is no evidence against the appellant as also nothing has been recovered from the possession of the appellant and there is no eye witness to the occurrence.

¶14

It has been contended that the appellant has been implicated in this case on the basis of the confessional statement of the other coaccused and he is languishing in judicial custody since 23.01.2023.

¶15

It has also been contended that co-accused person, namely, Rando Boipai has been granted regular bail vide order dated 10.08.2023 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 838 of 2023.

¶16

¶17

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.

¶18

While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that the appellant has confessed his guilt of commission of offence but the Additional Public Prosecutor has not disputed the fact of bail having been granted by this Court in favour of co-accused person, namely, Rando Boipai.

¶19

This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 23.01.2023 as also taking into consideration that the co-accused person, namely, Rando Boipai has been granted regular bail vide order dated 10.08.2023 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 838 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.

¶20

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.

¶21

Accordingly, the order dated 19.06.2024 passed in Misc. Cr. Application No. 679 of 2024 (S.T. Case No. 216 of 2023) in connection with Goilkera P.S. Case No. 44 of 2022, is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶22

In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.

¶23

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 S.D.J.M., Porahat, at Chaibasa in connection with in connection with Goilkera P.S. Case No. 44 of 2022 (S.T. Case No. 216 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

¶24

¶25

trial court is at liberty to take appropriate course in accordance with law.

¶26

Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of.

¶27

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶28

(Navneet Kumar, J.)

¶29

Saurabh /-

¶30

Odiya Surin v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Odiya Surin 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

Raj Kumar Barai Vs Mines And Geological Survey

Tinku Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sittu Upadhyay Alias Abhishek Upadhyay Vs the State of Jharkhand

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