Anil Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1760 Chatt

                                          1

                                                                          NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                       Criminal Appeal No. 351 of 2022
          Anil Yadav S/o Shri Ranjan @ Keshwar Yadav, Aged
          about 41 years, R/o Chai Bagan, Police Station
          Namkum, Distt. Ranchi (Jharkhand).

                                                              ­­­Appellant

                                        Versus

          State     of    Chhattisgarh         through   Police       Chowki,
          Bariyo,        Police         Station      Rajpur,         District
          Balrampur­Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh.

                                                             ­­­Respondent




    For Appellant           :­     Dr. Shailesh Ahuja,
                                   Mr. Palash Rajani and
                                   Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate
    For State               :­     Mr. Sunil Otwani, Addl. A.G.




             Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
                Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
                        Judgment on Board
                            31/03/2022
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. This appeal under Section 21(4) of National

Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is directed

against impugned order dated 09/09/2021 (Annexure

A/1) by which the application filed by the

appellant herein under Section 439 of CrPC has

been rejected by learned Sessions Judge,

Balrampur Ramanujganj.

2. Dr. Sailesh Ahuja, learned counsel for the

appellant, would submit that in a search/raid

conducted in the premises (Dhaba) of co­accused

Ravindra Kumar Sharma on 26/05/2021, one iron

knife (khukhri), one farsa, one sword and some

liqour were recovered and thereafter on

30/05/2021 on the memorandum statement of the co­

accused Ravindra Kumar Sharma again search/raid

was conducted and explosive substance was

recovered and offence has been registered against

the appellant herein. He would further submit

that the appellant has been falsely implicated in

the crime in question and he has not committed

any offence and he is in jail since 09/07/2021

and there is no criminal antecedent against him,

as such, he be released on bail.

3. Mr. Sunil Otwani, learned Additional Advocate

General, would submit that there are criminal

antecedents available against the appellant and

after the search/raid was conducted by the Police

in the premises of co­accused Ravindra Kumar

Sharma, the present appellant was absconding, as

such, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties,

considered their rival submissions made herein­

above and went through the records with utmost

circumspection.

5. Taking into consideration the facts and

circumstance of the case and the material

available on record and considering that

subsequent charge­sheet has been filed against

him under Section 178 of CrPC and he is in jail

since 09/07/2021, we are of the considered

opinion that learned Sessions Judge was

unjustified in rejecting bail application of the

appellant herein. Accordingly, the impugned order

dated 09/09/2021 (Annexure A/1) is hereby set

aside. The appellant be released on bail on his

furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.

25,000/­ with one surety in the like sum to the

satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, for his

appearance as and when directed.

6. The instant appeal is allowed to the extent

indicated herein­above.

           Sd/­                                               Sd/­
     (Sanjay K. Agrawal)                            (Rajani Dubey)
              Judge                                           Judge


Harneet