Jharkhand High Court
Parmeshwar Ganjhu vs The State Of Jharkhand on 31 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 518 of 2023
Parmeshwar Ganjhu --- --- 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. Abhay Kumar Chaturvedy, Advocate
: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, A.P.P.
Order No.08/ Dated 31st August, 2023
The instant appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant
under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 for
setting aside the order dated 17.02.2023 passed in B.P. No. 132 of 2023
by the learned Sessions Judge, Chatra in connection with Tandwa P.S.
Case No. 07 of 2017 registered under Sections 147,148,149,307,427 of
the IPC , Under Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act and under
Section 27 of the Arms Act and Under Section 17(i)(ii) of the CLA Act
pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra
whereby and where under, the appellant's prayer for regular bail has
been rejected.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that save and
except the confessional statement, there is no allegation against the
appellant. The submission has been made that the charge-sheet has been
submitted and no incriminating material has been recovered from the
possession of the appellant as also no specific overt act has been
surfaced in course of investigation. It has also been submitted that the
basis of implication of appellant in the case is the confession of one
Munesh Ganjhu, who has been acquitted vide judgment date 05.03.2022
passed in S.T. No. 382 of 2018 by the Learned Additional Sessions
Judge-V, Chatra, as per annexure-1 to the reply to the counter affidavit.
3. So far as criminal antecedent is concerned, it appears from the
criminal antecedent report that altogether 8 cases including the present
one are there. It has been submitted that in all those cases appellant has
been granted bail. Learned counsel for the appellant, in order to
substantiate the aforesaid submission has filed an affidavit in
response to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent State
wherein the detail of cases along with B.A. number has been referred in
para 5 to 12. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that
charge has already been framed on 16.08.2023 and as such, impugned
order may be interfered with, with the condition that appellant will
diligently appear from the learned Trial Court in each and every date and
thereby cooperate in the conclusion of the trial.
4. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has submitted by
referring to the F.I.R wherein the nature of allegation, according to the
learned A.P.P. is very serious. It has been submitted that based upon
confession of one Munesh Ganjhu, incriminating material has been
recovered including pamphlets of M.C.C group, five empty cartridges,
two batteries of 6 volts and 30 ft. of wire. Learned counsel for the State
further submitted that altogether 8 criminal cases is pending against the
appellant including the present one and hence taking into account the
aforesaid circumstances, the learned trial court has rejected the prayer
for bail, which may not be interfered with.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the
findings recorded by the learned court while rejecting the prayer of the
appellant for regular bail as also the case diary and affidavit filed on
behalf of the respective parties.
6. It appears that the name of the appellant has come on the basis of
the confession of one Munesh Ganjhu, who happened to be the member
of the banned extremist organization (MCC). Recovery has also been
shown to have been made. Learned Court while rejecting the prayer for
bail of the appellant has given emphasis upon the confessional statement
made in the case diary. On consideration the case diary at running page
no. 54, it is found that the same contain the confessional statement of
Munesh Ganjhu. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State is fair
enough to submit that save and except the confessional statement as
mentioned in the case diary, nothing more has surfaced during
investigation. However, ground has been taken that 8 criminal cases are
pending against the appellant, including the present one.
7. But, as would appear from the affidavit filed on behalf of the
appellant, in all the cases i.e., 7 in number, the appellant has been
directed to be released on bail as would appear from para 5 to12 of the
affidavit.
8. However, basis of the implication of the appellant in the present
case is the confession statement of Munesh Ganjhu, who has been
acquitted by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Chatra
vide judgment dated 05.03.2023 passed in S.T. Case No. 382 of 2018.
9. Further, it appears that charge has also been framed against the
appellant.
10. This Court, having taken into consideration the aforesaid fact, is
of the view that the impugned order needs interference.
11. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 17.02.2023 passed in B.P.
No. 132 of 2023 by the court of learned Sessions Judge, Chatra in
connection with Tandwa P.S. Case No. 07 of 2017 is, hereby, quashed
and set aside.
12. In view thereof, the instant appeal is allowed.
13. 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra in
connection with Tandwa P.S. Case No. 07 of 2017, subject to the
conditions that the appellant shall appear on each and every date before
the Trial Court, failing which, the learned Trial Court will be at liberty to
cancel the bail bond.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
A.Mohanty
