Jharkhand High Court
Kishor Sahu Aged About 40 Years vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 August, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB). No.923 of 2023
------
Kishor Sahu aged about 40 years S/O Drigpal Sahu R/O Village-
Sogra P.O. & P.S.-Sisai District-Gumla (Jharkhand)
.... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Satish Prasad, A.P.P.
------
06/Dated: 09.08.2023
1. The instant appeal preferred under Section 21(4) of the
National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is directed against the order
dated 11.05.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gumla in
A.B.P. No.201 of 2023 in connection with Sisai P.S. Case No.155 of
2022, registered for the offence under Sections 379/411 of the IPC,
Section 21 of Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulations) Act,
1957, Section 54 of the Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession
Rules, 2004, Section 13 of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of
illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 and Section
4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act, whereby and whereunder, the
prayer for pre-arrest bail of the appellant has been rejected.
2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant
that no incriminating material has been surfaced as on the date
against the appellant. However, one tractor being registration
no.JH07G/3260 loaded with stone bolder was intercepted by the
District Mining Officer, Gumla on secret information but the driver of
the tractor could not be in a position to produce relevant documents
in support of transportation of the said bolder.
3. It has been submitted that the aforesaid vehicle being
registration no.JH07G/3260 is not owned by the appellant.
4. The further submission has been made that the prayer for pre-
arrest of bail of the appellant has been rejected on the basis of
merely an allegation that he is the owner of the tractor involved in
illegal transportation of illegally excavated stone bolder by explosion
but there is no evidence to that effect.
5. The submission has also been made that this Court while
hearing the matter was called upon the case diary.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, on the aforesaid
premise, has submitted that the impugned order may be interfered
with, so that, the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the appellant may be
extended.
7. While on the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State
of Jharkhand by going through the case diary has submitted that the
tractor being registration no.JH07G/3260 belongs to one Deepak
Sahu as per the reference to that effect made at paragraph-40 of the
case diary.
8. Learned A.P.P. has also taken the ground that the appellant is
having criminal antecedent for the offence under Section 302 of the
IPC.
9. In response, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has
submitted that such submission of having criminal antecedent as has
been referred by the learned A.P.P. is absolutely incorrect and
incomplete, since, the appellant has been acquitted in the aforesaid
case, i.e., Sessions Trial Case No.215 of 2014 and certified copy of
the same has been placed before this Court as also supplied to the
learned A.P.P. for the State.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused
the finding recorded by the learned Court as also gone through the
case diary and affidavit in objection.
11. This Court after going through the impugned order has found
that the case of the appellant has not been considered to be fit for
grant of pre-arrest bail, since, the appellant has been considered to
be a named accused and by taking allegation that he is the owner of
the tractor which is involved in illegal transportation of illegal
excavated stone bolder by explosion.
12. Learned Court, on the basis of the aforesaid consideration of
the factual aspect, has rejected the prayer of pre-arrest bail.
13. This Court in order to verify the aforesaid finding has called
upon the case diary as also called upon the State to file affidavit in
objection so as to assess as to whether the finding so recorded by
the learned Court while rejecting the prayer for anticipatory bail is
justified or not?
14. We, after going through the case diary as also the stand inter-
alia taken in the affidavit in objection, have not found anywhere that
the tractor which was intercepted and found with the bolder, is owned
by the appellant, rather, the reference of vehicle bearing registration
no.JH07G/3260, as per the investigation, referred at paragraph-40 of
the case diary, is owned by one Deepak Sahu.
15. This Court, therefore, failed to understand that from where the
finding to the effect that the appellant is the owner of the tractor, as
has been recorded in the impugned order. If the aforesaid fact was
correct, then the same would have been referred in the case diary by
the Investigating Officer but that is not referred.
16. Therefore, the reason for rejecting the pre-arrest bail of the
appellant on the ground that the appellant is the owner of the tractor
is not based upon fact and in that view of the matter, we are of the
view that the aforesaid finding/reasoning for rejecting the pre-arrest
bail suffers from infirmity.
17. It needs to refer herein that the specific stand has been taken
by the Investigating Officer in the affidavit in objection, by making
reference of criminal antecedent.
18. Learned A.P.P. has admitted the fact that the reference
regarding the antecedent of the criminal case, which has said to be
an antecedent, the appellant has been acquitted vide judgment
dated 21.07.2022 passed in Sessions Trial Case No.215 of 2014.
19. But it is very surprising and it is unfortunate that the deponent
who has filed the affidavit, has furnished incomplete information,
even though, the appellant has been acquitted in the aforesaid case,
which we have perused from the certified copy of the order produced
by the appellant.
20. This Court has considered the statement so made only to
mislead the Court which is not proper on the part of the deponent.
21. Accordingly, the order dated 11.05.2023 passed by the
Sessions Judge, Gumla in A.B.P. No.201 of 2023, according to our
considered view, requires interference.
22. In consequence thereof, the order dated 11.05.2023 passed by
the Sessions Judge, Gumla in A.B.P. No.201 of 2023, is hereby
quashed and set aside.
23. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.
24. On consideration of the aforesaid facts, this Court is inclined to
extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the appellant. The appellant,
above named, accordingly, is directed to surrender before the
learned court below within 10 days and on his surrender, he shall be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount
each, to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Gumla in connection with Sisai P.S. Case No.155 of 2022, subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
25. Let this order be communicated to the Superintendent of Police
of the concerned district by cautioning the concerned authority to be
cautious in future in filing affidavit before the Court of law.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Rohit/-
