Jharkhand High Court
Harelal Mahato @ Hare Lal Mahato vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 January, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1081 of 2024
----
Harelal Mahato @ Hare Lal Mahato
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
with
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1131 of 2024
----
Basudev Mahato
... ... 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. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, APP [In Cr.A.1081/24]
Mr. Saket Kumar, APP [In Cr.A 1131/24}
--------
th
Order No. 06 : Dated 9 January, 2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J:
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1081 of 2024
1. The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the
National Investigating Agency Act, 2008 is directed the
order dated 23.07.2024 passed in Anticipatory Bail
Petition No. 244 of 2024 by learned Principal District &
Sessions Judge at Seraikella in connection with Nimdih
P.S. Case No. 0019 of 2024 registered under Sections
4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act and under Sections
25(1-B)(a)/26 of the Arms Act, pending in the Court of
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella,
whereby and whereunder the prayer for anticipatory bail
of the appellant has been rejected.
2. It has been contended on behalf of appellant that it is a
case where the order impugned needs to be interfered
with reason being that save and except the confessional
statement of the co-accused, namely, Basudev Mahato,
there is no incriminating material or any overt act has
been said to be there even if entire prosecution will be
taken into consideration in entirety.
3. It has further been submitted that charge-sheet has
already been submitted with respect to the co-accused
person, namely, Basudev Mahato and charge has been
framed against the co-accused but no nexus has been
shown of the present appellant save and except the
confessional statement of the co-accused.
4. It has further been submitted that even search has been
done in the house of the appellant but no incriminating
article has been found attracting offence under Section
4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act or Arms Act.
5. Further submission has been made that the appellant is
having mining lease issued by the Government of
Jharkhand, under the Jharkhand Minor Mineral
Concession Rules, as would be evident from annexure 1
to the supplementary affidavit.
6. So far as the criminal antecedents, which are two in
number, are concerned submission has been made that
first one pertains to offences related to Indian Penal
Code and Disaster Management Act; and second
criminal antecedent is bailable in nature and in both of
the cases the appellant is on bail.
7. Argument has been advanced by referring to the
impugned order wherein there is no consideration of the
plea having been taken by learned counsel for the
appellant seeking privilege of pre-arrest bail before the
learned court and hence, according to learned counsel
for the appellant the impugned order is not sustainable
in the eyes of law, and as such the privilege of bail in
apprehension of arrest is to be granted.
8. While on the other hand, Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha,
learned A.P.P. appearing for the respondent-State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for pre-arrest bail by
defending the impugned order.
9. Learned A.P.P submits by referring to paragraph 6 of the
case diary where co-accused Basudev Mahato has
disclosed the culpability of the present appellant and as
such submission has been made that it is incorrect on
the part of the appellant to take the ground that no
overt act said to be committed by the appellant.
Therefore, submission has been made that in that view
of the matter, the prayer for appellant of pre-arrest bail
has been rejected, as such the impugned order may not
be interfered with.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
gone across the finding recorded by the learned court in
the impugned order and the case diary as also the
criminal antecedent report of the appellant.
11. This Court has found from the case diary that on
the basis of confessional statement of co-accused,
namely, Basudev Mahato, name of the appellant has
come, who happens to be the staff of the present
appellant.
12. The admitted fact herein is that the in course of
raid nothing incriminating article has been recovered
from the physical or conscious possession of the
appellant, as such ingredient of Sections 4/5 of the
Explosive Substance Act will not attract. The appellant
in order to show bona fide has brought on record by way
of filing supplementary affidavit the mining lease
granted in his favour by the competent authority of the
State Government.
13. Furthermore, there are two criminal antecedents
are there. The first one pertains to offences related to
Indian Penal Code and Disaster Management Act in
which it has been stated that privilege of bail has been
allowed; and second criminal antecedent is bailable in
nature in which also the appellant is on bail.
14. It needs to refer herein that the principle, which is
to be exercised for the purpose of grant of pre-arrest bail
has already been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT
of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, wherein the Constitution
Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that
while considering pre arrest bail Courts ought to be
generally guided by considerations such as the nature
and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the
applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering
whether to grant anticipatory bail or not.
15. It is evident from the aforesaid judgment that the
privilege of pre-arrest bail is to be given if on the face of
the record no material is available against the applicant
and thereby the applicant has been able to make out a
prima facie case for grant of privilege of pre-arrest bail.
16. This Court applying the principle, as laid down by
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal v.
State (NCT of Delhi) (supra) wherein the principle of
pre-arrest has been laid down and on the basis of
discussion made hereinabove and coming to the order
passed by the learned court has found that the learned
court without taking into consideration these facts has
passed the impugned order, hence, this Court is of the
view that the impugned order needs interference.
17. Accordingly, the 23.07.2024 passed in
Anticipatory Bail Petition No. 244 of 2024 is hereby
quashed and set aside.
18. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.
19. In consequence thereof, this Court directs the
appellant, above named, shall surrender before the
learned court below within a period of four weeks and
on his surrender, he may 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 Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Seraikella, in connection with Nimdih P.S.
Case No. 0019 of 2024, subject to the conditions that
the appellant shall co-operate in the investigation failing
which the investigation officer will be at liberty to make
an application before the concerned court for
cancellation of bail; and with a further condition that
the appellant shall co-operate in the trial so that there
may not be any hindrance in trial and in case of any
hindrance, the trial court may proceed in accordance
with law.
20. It is made clear that any observation(s) made
hereinabove is only for the purpose of consideration of
pre-arrest bail having no bearing with the
investigation/trial.
21. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of.
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1131 of 2024
22. The instant appeal filed, under Section 21(4) of the
National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed
against the order dated 23.07.2024 passed in Bail
Petition No.114 of 2024 by learned Principal District &
Sessions Judge at Seraikella in connection with Nimdih
P.S. Case No. 0019 of 2024 registered under Sections
4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act and under Sections
25(1-B)(a)/26 of the Arms Act, pending in the Court of
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandil,
by which, the prayer for regular bail of the appellant,
has been rejected.
23. It has been contended on behalf of appellant that
although as per First Information Report and the
material as has been surfaced in course of investigation
as taken in the case diary it is evident that explosive
substance has been recovered from the house of the
present appellant but the appellant is in custody since
11.05.2024. Furthermore, charge-sheet has already
been submitted and charge has already been framed.
Learned counsel for the appellant has emphatically
submitted that none of the witnesses has been
examined.
24. Therefore, submission has been made by learned
counsel for the appellant that the impugned order
requires interference by this Court and the present
appeal may be allowed.
25. While on the other hand, Mr. Saket Kumar,
learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail since as per learned State
counsel incriminating arms and ammunitions as also
the explosive substances have been recovered from the
possession of the appellant.
26. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
gone across the finding recorded by the learned court in
the impugned order as also the case diary.
27. It is evident from the FIR and the materials
collected in course of investigation that arms and
ammunitions as also the explosive substances have
been recovered from the possession of the appellant.
however, the appellant is in custody since 11.05.2024.
Furthermore, charge-sheet has already been submitted
and charge has already been framed and the case is at
the stage of evidence and none of the witnesses have
been examined as per the statement made by the
appellant.
28. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.07.2024
passed in Bail Petition No.114 of 2024 by learned
Sessions Judge at Seraikella in connection with Nimdih
P.S. Case No. 0019 of 2024, is hereby quashed and set
aside.
29. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.
30. In consequence thereof, the appellant, above
named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing
bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each
to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Chandil in connection with Nimdih
P.S. Case No. 0019 of 2024, 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 court shall have liberty to pass
appropriate order in accordance with law so that trial
be not hindered and further that one of the bailors
should be close relative of the appellant, which is to be
accompanied by affidavit justifying that such bailor is
close relative of the appellant.
31. It is made clear that any observation(s) made
hereinabove is only for the purpose of consideration of
bail having no bearing with the trial.
- 10 -
32. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Alankar/
