Rakesh Kumar Chandravanshi @ ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 4839 Jhar

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     ( Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction)

                            B.A. No. 5985 of 2022

Rakesh Kumar Chandravanshi @ Karanji @ Kran Jee @ Chotu @ Rakesh
Kumar Choudhary, s/o Uday Prasad, r/o Village Hatha Merih, PS & PO
Katkamsandi, District Hazaribag                          ......Petitioner
                                Versus
The State of Jharkhand                             ..... Opposite Party
                                    ---------------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

For the Petitioner : Mr. Awnish Shankar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, APP

---------------

nd Order No.05/ Dated: 2 December 2022 This is third attempt by the petitioner seeking bail in connection to Barhi (Padma) PS Case No. 219 of 2013 corresponding to GR Case No. 2505 of 2013 which was registered under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 379, 341, 385, 386, 387 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC), section 25(1-b)A/26 of the Arms Act and section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.

2. B.A. No. 5055 of 2017 and B.A. No. 1473 of 2020 which were previously filed by the petitioner have been dismissed.

3. By an order dated 6th July 2018, B.A. No. 5055 of 2017 has been dismissed in the following terms:

"The petitioner seeks bail in Barhi (Padma) P.S. Case No.219 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2505 of 2013.

Mr. Ranjit Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner referring to orders granting bail to co-accused persons in B.A. No.710 of 2014 and in B.A. No.10895 of 2013 submits that the petitioner against whom there is similar allegation of demanding extortion is entitled for bail. He is in judicial custody since 27.02.2017. Mr. Hardeo Prasad Singh, the learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer for grant of bail. He refers two affidavits dated 23.04.2018 and 25.04.2018 and submits that there are as many as 8 criminal cases of serious nature registered against the petitioner.

The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. In view of criminal antecedent of the petitioner, plea of parity on the ground of orders granting bail to co- accused persons must fail [refer "Neeru Yadav Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another" reported in (2014) 16 SCC 508].

Involvement of the petitioner in series of criminal cases is an indication that he is a habitual offender and once released on bail there is reasonable probability of his committing the crime once again and while so, I am not inclined to grant bail to him.

Finding no merit in the bail application, it is dismissed. However, proceeding of B.A. No. 5055 of 2017 shall be attached with B.A. No.4708 of 2017."

4. The second bail application filed by the petitioner vide B.A. No. 1473 of 2020 has been dismissed on 19 th May 2020 for the following reasons:

"Hearing of this Bail Application has been convened and conducted through Video-Conferencing. This is second attempt by the petitioner seeking bail in Barhi (Padma) P.S. Case No. 219 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No. 2505 of 2013 which was registered under section 147/148/149/323/379/341/385/386/387 of the Indian Penal Code; section 25(1-b)A/26 of the Arms Act and section 17 of the CLA.

Mr. Rahul Dev, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has remained in custody for about 3 years and 3 months in this case and he has been granted bail by this Court in some of the cases registered against him. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that delay in examining the witnesses during the trial is a reasonable ground for releasing the petitioner on bail.

Mr. Shekhar Sinha, the learned Public Prosecutor however states that the order dated 06.07.2018 by which previous bail application of the petitioner vide B.A. No. 5055 of 2017 was rejected records that there are several criminal cases of serious nature registered against the petitioner.

From the materials brought on record particularly the order dated 23.05.2017 it appears that the petitioner is a member of the banned organization, namely, JPC. There are serious allegations levelled against him and as noticed above there are other cases also registered against him. May be some of the co-accused persons have been granted bail and the petitioner has also been granted bail in other cases registered against him, but these facts are not sufficient to release him on bail in the present case. The trial in G.R. No. 2505 of 2013 has already commenced and in view of the nature of allegations and criminal antecedents of the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to him and, accordingly, B.A. No. 1473 of 2020 is dismissed. However, the trial Judge is directed to take all necessary steps for ensuring attendance of the remaining witnesses and shall endeavor for concluding the trial expeditiously.

Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the court concerned through FAX."

5. Mr. Awnish Shankar, the learned counsel for the petitioner has

referred to the orders dated 1 st March 2014, 31st March 2015 and 28th July 2015 passed in B.A. No. 710 of 2014, B.A. No. 9640 of 2014 and B.A. No. 4419 of 2015 in which co-accused namely, Rajesh Jee @ Bandhan Ganjhu @ Rajesh Ji, Dinesh Bedia @ Dinanathe Bedia @ Roshan Ji and Dasrath Yadav have been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the case was committed to the Court of sessions no witness has been examined in the trial.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner has remained in custody for about six years.

8. In the aforesaid facts, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner deserves bail in GR Case No. 2505 of 2013.

9. Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, the learned APP for the State has referred to the affidavit dated 16th November 2022 to submit that as many as nine criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner would, however, submit that in five cases the petitioner has been acquitted and in Pathalgadda PS Case No. 10 of 2015 he has been granted bail by an order dated 14 th March 2016 passed in B.A. No. 522 of 2016.

10. In the first place, it is pertinent to indicate that acquittal of the petitioner in criminal cases would not wipe out the history of criminal cases against him. The fact remains that the petitioner has been implicated in nine criminal cases and, therefore, a natural inference which can be drawn from such fact is that once released on bail there is reasonable probability of his committing the crime again.

11. In "State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi" (2005) 8 SCC 21 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has indicated that chances of an accused committing crime once released on bail shall be one of the important considerations while dealing with an application for bail. On the plea of parity, all that I intend to indicate is that each case has to be decided on its own merit. In the matters of bail, the role played by the accused and other attending circumstances which would include his criminal antecedent are the relevant considerations [refer "Neeru Yadav v. State of UP" (2014) 16 SCC 508].

12. Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, the learned APP has referred to the

judgment in "Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav" (2004) 7 SCC 528 to submit that a subsequent bail application after dismissal of the earlier one on merits is normally not entertained except in exceptional cases.

13. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances in the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, B.A. No. 5985 of 2022 is dismissed.

14. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the Court concerned through 'FAX'.

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) RKM