Jharkhand High Court
Babuchand Marandi @ Suraj Marandi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 August, 2023
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 480 of 2023
----
Babuchand Marandi @ Suraj Marandi ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-------
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
------
For the Appellants : Md. Sajid Yunus, Advocate
Ms. Ayush Ansari, Advocate
For the Respondent : Ms. Kumari Rashmi, APP
--------
rd
Order No. 08 : Dated 23 August, 2023
The instant appeal, filed under Section 21(4) of the
National Investigating Agency Act, 2008, is directed against
the order dated 13.02.2023 passed in M.C.A. No. 226 of
2023 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih in
connection with Sessions Trial No. 376 of 2019 in
connection with Madhuban P.S. Case No. 12 of 2017
corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1674 of 2017 registered
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 207, 120B of the Indian
Penal Code; 25(1-b)a/26/27 of the Arms Act; 3/4/5 of the
Explosive Substance Act and 13 of UAP Act, whereby and
whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has
been rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted
by referring to the statement made by appellant under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. that he on his own has not become the
member of M.C.C rather he was forced to become a member
of M.C.C., but after remaining for some period in the group
he fled away and started earning his livelihood by working
as labour and at that time he was apprehended and taken
into judicial custody with other accused persons. It has
further been contended that there is no criminal antecedent
of the appellant and further he remained in judicial custody
for the last five years.
3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing
for the State referring to the averments made in the counter
affidavit has submitted that the appellant has proximity
with the banned organization, M.C.C. and he was found to
be active member of the said organization, which he
accepted in his statement recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C.
4. Learned counsel for the State on the aforesaid premise
has submitted that it is not a case where the impugned
order needs interference by this Court, as such the instant
appeal may be dismissed.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone
through the finding recorded by learned Court while
rejecting the prayer for regular bail. We have also gone
through the case diary as also the criminal antecedent
report of the appellant as appended with the case diary and
the statement made by the appellant under Section 164
Cr.P.C.
6. It is evident from the statement made under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. that the appellant has confessed that
he was the member of MCC group, however, on being
compelled to do so. He has further stated that after
remaining for some time in the group he left the group and
started living peacefully by earning his own livelihood by
engaging himself as labour in the local area. He was
apprehended on 18.08.2018 and since then he is
languishing in judicial custody.
7. It further appears that charge-sheet has been
submitted in this case and out of 30 prosecution witness
only four witness has been examined, as would be evident
from status report, which has been received by this Court
in pursuance to order passed by this Court 3rd August,
2023. We have also found there is no criminal antecedent of
the appellant as per reference made in the case diary.
Consideration of this Court is also made that the appellant
is languishing in judicial custody for the last more than five
years and yet 26 witnesses have to be examined.
8. The question of Article 21 of the Constitution of
India is of paramount importance which we have taken into
consideration coupled with the judgment rendered in Union
of India vs. K.A. Najeeb [(2021) 3 SCC 713], in particular
paragraph 10 and 11, which reads as under:
"10. It is a fact that the High Court in the instant case has not
determined the likelihood of the respondent being guilty or not, or
whether rigours of Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA are alien to him. The
High Court instead appears to have exercised its power to grant bail
owing to the long period of incarceration and the unlikelihood of the
trial being completed anytime in the near future. The reasons assigned
by the High Court are apparently traceable back to Article 21 of our
Constitution, of course without addressing the statutory embargo
created by Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA.
11. The High Court's view draws support from a batch of decisions of
this Court, including in Shaheen Welfare Assn. [Shaheen Welfare
Assn. v. Union of India, (1996) 2 SCC 616 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 366] ,
laying down that gross delay in disposal of such cases would justify
the invocation of Article 21 of the Constitution and consequential
necessity to release the undertrial on bail. It would be useful to quote
the following observations from the cited case: (SCC p. 622, para 10)
"10. Bearing in mind the nature of the crime and the need to protect
the society and the nation, TADA has prescribed in Section 20(8)
stringent provisions for granting bail. Such stringent provisions can
be justified looking to the nature of the crime, as was held inKartar
Singh case [Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569 :
1994 SCC (Cri) 899] , on the presumption that the trial of the
accused will take place without undue delay. No one can justify
gross delay in disposal of cases when undertrials perforce remain
in jail, giving rise to possible situations that may justify invocation
of Article 21."
(emphasis supplied)
9. This Court taking into consideration the aforesaid
proposition of law coupled with the factual aspect herein
that the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since
last five years as also there is no criminal antecedent of the
appellant is of the view that impugned order requires
interference by this Court.
10. Accordingly, the order dated order dated
13.02.2023 passed in M.C.A. No. 226 of 2023 is hereby
quashed and set aside.
11. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands
allowed.
12. In consequence thereof, the appellant, above
named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 10,000/- [Ten Thousand] with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned
Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih in connection with
Sessions Trial No. 376 of 2019 in connection with
Madhuban P.S. Case No. 12 of 2017 corresponding to G.R.
Case No. 1674 of 2017, 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.
13. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Alankar/-
