Jharkhand High Court
Resful Sk @ Reshful Sk. @ Resful Shekh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 January, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1483 of 2023
---------
1. Resful Sk @ Reshful Sk. @ Resful Shekh, aged about 30 years, s/o Late
Rahman Sk.
2. Modas Sk., @ Modaser Sk. @ Mudaser Shekh, aged about 27 years, s/o
Riyauddin @ Riyajudadin Shekh.
3. Lagfor Sk., @ Jahiruddin Sk., aged about 35 years, s/o Lutful Sk. @ Nutful
Sk. @ Nuthfal Shekh.
4. Asraful Sk. @ Ashraful Shekh, aged about 19 years, s/o Kaosar Sk. @
Kaosar Shekh.
All resident of Village-Kakarbona, P.O.-Jhikarhati, P.S. Pakur (M) District-
Pakur (Jharkhand).
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... ... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
----------
For the Appellants : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate
For the Res.-State : Mrs. Priya Shreshtha, Spl. P.P.
For the Informant : Mrs. Nitu Sinha, Advocate
-----------
th
05/Dated: 08 January, 2024
1. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants has
submitted that since the appellant no.3, namely, Lagfor Sk., @ Jahiruddin
Sk., has been arrested during pendency of the instant appeal, as such, the
instant appeal is not being pressed against the said appellant, i.e., appellant
no.3, namely, Lagfor Sk., @ Jahiruddin Sk.
2. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed as not pressed so far as it relates
to appellant no.3, namely, Lagfor Sk., @ Jahiruddin Sk.
3. The instant criminal appeal has been filed under Section 21(4) of the
National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dated 18.08.2023
passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Pakur in Anticipatory Bail
Petition No. 337 of 2023, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for pre-arrest
bail in connection with Pakur Muffasil P.S. Case No. 155 of 2023 registered
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 504 and 506 of IPC and under
Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act, has been rejected.
4. The brief facts of the case, as per the prosecution version, which required to
be enumerated reads hereunder as:-
On 21.07.2023 there was a marriage of informant's sister and after
marriage at about 01:30 PM informant along with the guest were resting on
the roof of his house, and at the same time Anjamul Sk., Kausar Sk., Modas
Sk., Lagfor Sk., Asraful Sk., Lal Mohammad Sk. @ Laltu and Resful Sk.
Came there and started searching his (informant) cousin Mittu Sk. to beat
him and started abusing. It is further alleged that another accused Ajamul Sk.
started throwing bomb which fell on the roof of the informant's house which
created panic and due to said bomb blast niece of informant Madhbira
khatun, cousin Rahijul Sk., aunts Marjina Bibi, Sufeda Bibi got badly
injured and after the incident all the accused persons fled away from there. It
is further alleged that earlier Anjamul Sk., Kausar Sk., Resful Sk., Asraful
Sk., who used to sell weed (ganja) and spoil the environment of the village
and Mithu Sk. forbade them to do so and after getting opportunity, all the
accused persons intentionally hurled bomb on the house.
5. On the basis of aforesaid fardbayan Pakur Muffasil P.S. Case No. 155 of
2023 was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 504 and
506 of IPC and under Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act.
6. Apprehending their arrest, the appellants filed Anticipatory Bail Petition
bearing 337 of 2023 before the Principal Sessions Judge, Pakur but the same
has been rejected vide order dated 18.08.2023, hence the instant appeal is
preferred.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant nos. 1, 2 and 4 has
submitted that the present appellants have falsely been implicated in the
instant case.
8. It has further been submitted that the appellants are having no criminal
antecedents and there is general and omnibus allegation against all the
appellants and further no any overt act has been alleged against the
appellants.
9. It has further been submitted that nothing has been recovered from the
possession of the appellants and most of the alleged offences are bailable in
nature except the offence as alleged under section 307 of IPC and section 3/4
of Explosive Substance Act which is non bailable in nature, hence it is a fit
case where impugned order may be interfered with.
10. While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
the respondent-State has submitted that the appellants are named accused in
FIR and there are specific allegations against them.
11. It is further submitted that one of the co-accused, namely, Lal Mohammad
Sk., in his confessional statement recorded at para 5 of the case-diary, has
confessed his involvement as well as the involvement of accused petitioners
in commission of alleged offence. It is further contended that the
investigation in the instant case is still pending.
12. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, in view of the aforesaid premise, has
submitted that in these pretexts, if the prayer for anticipatory bail has been
rejected by the learned court, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error.
13. We are conscious to the fact that this Court is sitting in the appeal but before
adverting to the issue raised by the respective parties, it will be profitable to
consider the settled law with respect to granting and/or refusing the
anticipatory bail.
14. It has been settled by the Apex Court time and again in its various
pronouncements that the anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional
circumstances where the court is prima-facie of the view that the applicant
has falsely been implicated in the crime, as grant of anticipatory bail to some
extent, interference in sphere of investigation of an offence and hence, the
court must be circumspect while exercising such powers.
15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi),
(2020) 5 SCC 1, has observed that while deciding applications for pre-arrest
bail, the courts should be guided by factors like the nature and gravity of the
offences and the role attributed to the applicant and the facts of the case.
16. It is also settled connotation of law that the grant or refusal of the application
of pre-arrest bail should necessarily depend on the facts and circumstance of
each case. Reference in this regard may be taken from the judgment as
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of
Investigation Vs Santosh Krnani and Another reported in 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 427. For ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid
judgment is being quoted herein under
"24. The time-tested principles are that no straitjacket formula can be
applied for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. The judicial discretion of
the Court shall be guided by various relevant factors and largely it will
depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court must
draw a delicate balance between liberty of an individual as guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution and the need for a fair and free
investigation, which must be taken to its logical conclusion. Arrest has
devastating and irreversible social stigma, humiliation, insult, mental pain
and other fearful consequences. Regardless thereto, when the Court, on
consideration of material information gathered by the Investigating Agency,
is prima facie satisfied that there is something more than a mere needle of
suspicion against the accused, it cannot jeopardise the investigation, more
so when the allegations are grave in nature."
17. Now coming in to facts of the instant case and considering the submissions
and on perusal of record including the case-diary, it appears that the FIR was
registered against the accused appellants and other co-accused u/s 147, 148,
149, 341, 323, 307, 504, 506 Indian Penal Code (IPC) and u/s 3/4 of
Explosive Substance Act with allegation that on the relevant day of incident
they along with other co-accused went to the house of the informant to beat
the informant's cousin Mishu Sk. and started throwing bomb which fell upon
the informant's house which created panic and due to which the relatives of
the informant got badly injured.
18. On perusal of case-diary, it appears that the one of the co-accused Lal
Mohammad Sk. in his confessional statement recorded at para 5 of the case-
diary, has confessed his involvement as well as the involvement of accused
petitioners in commission of alleged offence.
19. Further, the witnesses including seizure list witnesses, namely Kabirul Sk.,
Sariful Sk., Salim Sk., Basir Sk., Jahangir Sk. Ferajul Sk., Rafijuddin Sk.
and Raisuddin S. in their respective statement recorded at paras 9, 10, 11, 22,
21, 24, 32 and 33 of the case-diary have substantiated the prosecution
version and as per seizure list, bomb residue, pieces of tin and sutli (twin),
gunpowder, soil smell gunpowder were recovered in front of the house of
the informant and same was seized in front of two witnesses namely Kabirul
Sk. and Sarafi Sk.
20. It further appears that the present appellants are the named accused in the
FIR and instant case is still under investigation.
21. In view of the foregoing discussions, as well as on considering the gravity of
the offence, we find no illegality in the impugned order dated 18.08.2023.
22. In the result, we find no merit in the instant appeal, hence, the same is
accordingly, dismissed.
23. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, also stands dismissed.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Saurabh/-
