Dhananjay Singh Alias Abhimanyu Jee Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No.974 of 2024

------ Dhananjay Singh @ Abhimanyu Jee aged about 28 yrs. Son of Anirudh Singh, resident of Village-Karma Tilha, P.O. & P.S.-Manatu, District-Palamu …. …. Appellant

¶3

…. …. Appellant

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand .... .... Respondent

¶6

CORAM : HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

¶7

------ For the Appellant : Mr. Sushant Kr. Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Lily Sahay, A.P.P.

¶8

02/Dated: 04.09.2024

¶9

1. The instant appeal preferred under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, is directed against the order dated 19.04.2024 passed in Misc. Cr. Application No.589 of 2024 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-V, Chatra, in connection with S.T. No.111 of 2023 arising out of Chatra Sadar P.S. Case No.390 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No.1742 of 2017, registered for the offence under Section 387/34 of the IPC, Section 17(i)(ii) of the C.L.A. Act and Sections 16, 18, & 20 of the U.A.(P) Act, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been rejected.

¶10

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.

¶11

3. It has further been contended that there is no recovery of any incriminating material from the physical or conscious possession of the appellant and there is no direct or indirect evidence against the

¶12

¶13

appellant to implicate him in the present case.

¶14

4. It has also been contended that the identically placed co-accused person, namely, Vishwanath Ganjhu has already been directed to be released on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.02.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1179 of 2023.

¶15

5. While on the other hand, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. However, she is fair enough to admit the fact that the case of the aforesaid co-accused person as referred above, who has already been directed to be released on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court, is identically placed to that of the case of the present appellant.

¶16

6. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court, is of the view that identically placed co-accused person, namely, Vishwanath Ganjhu has already been directed to be released on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.02.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1179 of 2023, therefore, there is no reason to take distinct view, so far as the case of the present appellant is concerned.

¶17

7. Moreover, the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 03.03.2021.

¶18

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

¶19

9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.04.2024 passed in Misc. Cr. Application No.589 of 2024 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-V, Chatra, is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶20

¶21

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

¶22

11. In consequence thereof, the appellant, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-V, Chatra, in connection with S.T. No.111 of 2023 arising out of Chatra Sadar P.S. Case No.390 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No.1742 of 2017, 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.

¶23

12. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of.

¶24

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J.)

¶25

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

¶26

Rohit/-

¶27

Dhananjay Singh Alias Abhimanyu Jee v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhananjay Singh Alias Abhimanyu Jee 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shreya Kumari Tirkey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Umaayush Multicom Pvt. Ltd. Thro One of Its Driectors Shri Lalan Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

M/S Central Coal Field Limited through Its Authorized Signatory Jobi Vp Vs Basanti Bai

M/S Maa Tara Stone Works through Its Proprietor Namely Sunil Kumar Singh Vs State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of State Tax

Mithun Kumar Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Hadi Munda Alias Sanika Pahan Vs the State of Jharkhand