Jharkhand High Court
Kartik Mahato vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 August, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.571 of 2023
-----
Kartik Mahato, aged about 36 years, son of Chhedi Mahto,
resident of Village - Jilimtand Borragarh, P.O. & P.S. -
Khurkara, Pirtand, Dist.- Giridih.
.... ... 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. Vikash Anand, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Satish Prasad, A.P.P.
------
Order No. 06/Dated 17th August, 2023
1. The instant appeal preferred under Section 21(4) of
the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is directed
against the order dated 17.11.2022 passed in Bail Petition
No.1435 of 2022 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-
VI, Dhanbad by which the prayer for regular bail in
connection with Maniadih P.S. Case No.16/2019 registered
under Sections 307 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code,
Section 4/5 of Explosive Substance Act and Sections 17(1)
and 17(2) of the C.L.A. Act, has been rejected.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant
that the appellant is named in the F.I.R. but no
incriminating material has been recovered from the
possession of the appellant. The appellant has been
implicated only on the basis of vague and omnibus
allegations that he is a member of banned organization i.e.,
M.C.C.
3. It has been further been contended that he has
been remanded in this case from Pirtand P.S. Case
No.40/2018, in which the appellant has been acquitted
vide judgment dated 04.08.2023. It has further been
submitted that one another case is pending i.e., Khukhra
P.S. Case No.25/2018, in which, the learned Single Judge
Bench of this Court has granted bail vide order dated
14.11.2022 passed in B.A. No. 10516 of 2022.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant on the basis of
aforesaid premise has submitted that the impugned order
dated 17.11.2022 may be quashed and set aside and the
appellant may be directed to be released from the judicial
custody since the appellant is languishing in judicial
custody since 10.03.2022.
7. While on the other hand, Mr. Satish Prasad, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the opposite
party - State, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail
by taking the ground that the appellant has been found to
be actively involved in extremist activity associated with
M.C.C. group. It has been contended that there are criminal
antecedent i.e., Pirtand P.S. Case No.40/2018 and
Khukhra P.S. Case No.25/2018, therefore, the impugned
order may not be interfered with.
12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone
across the finding recorded by the learned court rejecting
the prayer for regular bail as also the case diary.
13. It appears from the material available on record
particularly from the case diary that no incriminating
material surfaced in course of investigation, save and
except the allegation that the appellant is associated with
extremist group i.e., M.C.C. Learned Additional Public
Prosecutor has failed to point out any material as to how
the appellant is connected with M.C.C. Group. The ground
of criminal antecedent has also been taken on behalf of
State-Opposite Party as also in the impugned order but it is
evident that in Pirtand P.S. Case No.40/2018, the appellant
has been acquitted vide judgment dated 04.08.2023, from
which case the appellant has been remanded in this case
prior to acquittal in that case; whereas in Kukhra P.S. Case
No.25/2018, the learned Single Judge Bench of this Court
has granted bail vide order dated 14.11.2022 passed in
B.A. No. 10516 of 2022.
14. The appellant is in custody since 10.03.2022. In
view thereof, this Court is of the view that the impugned
order needs to be interfered with.
15. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 17.11.2022
passed in Bail Petition No.1435/2022 by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Dhanbad in connection with
Maniadih P.S. Case No.16/2019 is, hereby, quashed and
set aside
In the result, the instant appeal is allowed.
16. In consequence thereof, the appellant, above
named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail
bonds of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in
connection with Maniadih P.S. Case No.16/2019, 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.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Alankar/-
