Jharkhand High Court
Nitish Kumar @ Nitish Kumar Rawani vs The State Of Jharkhand on 26 March, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.314 of 2025
-----
Nitish Kumar @ Nitish Kumar Rawani, aged about 32 years, son of Sagar Kahar, Loyabad Coke Plant, Jyoti Nagar, Mishirdi, PS-Loyabad, PO-Bansjora, District-Dhanbad ....... ... Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. B.N. Ojha, Spl.PP
------
th Order No.04/Dated: 26 March 2025
1. The instant appeal under section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 has been directed against the order dated 05.02.2025 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-VII, Dhanbad in Bail Petition No. 86 of 2025 whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with Putki PS Case No.23 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 147/ 148/ 149/ 323/ 337/ 353/307/387/120(B) of the IPC, Sections 3/4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that it is a case where the appellant has falsely been implicated.
3. The submission has also been made that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the conscious possession of the present appellant. It has been contended that there are general and omnibus allegations against the present appellant in the FIR.
4. It has been contended that the co-accused persons, namely, Akshay Kumar Yadav @ Akshay Yadav has been granted bail vide order dated 19.06.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.490 of 2024 and Sonu Yadav @ Sonu Gope has been granted bail vide order dated 30.04.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.462 of 2024 by a co- ordinate Bench of this Court.
5. It has been contended that the case of the present appellant is identical to that of the said co-accused, namely, Akshay Kumar Yadav @ Akshay Yadav and Sonu Yadav @ Sonu Gope, who have been directed to be released on bail by the order of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the impugned order may be interfered with.
7. While on the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant stating that the nature of allegation said to be committed by the appellant is serious, however, he has not disputed the fact that the co-accused persons, namely, Akshay Kumar Yadav @ Akshay Yadav and Sonu Yadav @ Sonu Gope have been directed to be released on bail by the order of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the findings recorded by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment as also the testimonies of the witnesses and other material exhibits available therein.
9. The main ground taken on behalf of the appellant is that the case of the present appellant is on similar footing of the co-accused, namely, Akshay Kumar Yadav @ Akshay Yadav and Sonu Yadav @ Sonu Gope, who have been directed to be released on bail by the order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 2
10. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the principle of parity is to be made applicable in the present case and, accordingly, we are of the view that the appellant has been able to make out a case for grant of bail and the impugned order needs to be interfered with.
11. Accordingly, the order impugned dated 05.02.2025 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-VII, Dhanbad in Bail Petition No. 86 of 2025 in connection with Putki PS Case No.23 of 2024, so far as it relates to the present appellant is concerned, is hereby, quashed and set aside.
12. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.
13. 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with Putki PS Case No.23 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 trial court shall have liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law so that trial be not hindered.
14. I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sudhir 3