Jharkhand High Court
Rakesh @ Viraj Ganjhu @ Rakesh Ganjhu vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 January, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.2180 of 2023
------
Rakesh @ Viraj Ganjhu @ Rakesh Ganjhu
.... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Shekhar Pd. Gupta, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
------
04/Dated: 23.01.2024
1. The instant appeal preferred under Section 21(4) of the
National Investigation Agency Act, is directed against the order dated
22.11.2023 passed in Misc. Cr. Application No.422 of 2023 by the
learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Lohardaga, in
connection with Special NIA Case No.06 of 2023 arising out of
Jobang P.S. Case No.07 of 2020, whereby and whereunder, the
prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been rejected.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a
case where the appellant has falsely been implicated in the instant
case, since, no specific attributability has been alleged if the FIR will
be taken into consideration.
3. It has further been contended that there is no recovery from his
physical possession and only on the basis of his previous criminal
antecedent, he has been implicated in the instant case.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid
ground, has submitted that the learned court while considering the
prayer for regular bail since has not considered the aforesaid
aspects of the matter, therefore, the order impugned suffers from
illegality and hence, not sustainable in the eye of law.
5. While, on the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor appearing
for the State has seriously opposed the prayer for regular bail on the
ground that there is specific attributability as has been surfaced in
course of investigation as referred in paragraph-142 and 143 of the
case diary which has been taken note by the learned court while
considering the prayer for regular bail.
6. Further, the ground has also been taken about 11 criminal
cases of like nature, are pending against him.
7. Learned Public Prosecutor, based upon the aforesaid ground
has submitted that on the said ground, if the prayer for regular bail of
the appellant has been rejected, the same cannot be said to suffer
from error.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone
across the finding recorded by the learned court while considering
the prayer for regular bail.
9. We have appreciated the arguments advanced on behalf of the
appellant and in course thereof, have found that the appellant has
been found to be involved in 11 criminal cases of like nature.
10. Further, specific attributability has come in course of
investigation, as referred at paragraph-142 and 143 of the case
diary.
11. It has further come that the appellant is the active member of
banned organization, i.e., TPC and that is the reason, the allegation
under Sections 10 & 13 of the U.A.(P) Act has also been leveled.
12. The same issue has already been decided by the Hon'ble
Apex Court that if a person is a member of the banned organization,
the allegation under Sections 10 &13 of the U.A.(P) Act will be said
to be attracted, reference in this regard may be made to the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arup
Bhuyan Vrs. State of Assam & Anr., reported in (2023) 8 SCC 745.
13. This Court, considering the aforesaid fact, is of the view that if
the learned court has refused to enlarge the appellant on bail, the
same according to our considered view, requires no interference.
14. In the result, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Rohit/-
