Jharkhand High Court
Lakhan Murmu vs Central Bureau Of Investigation .... ... on 11 July, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:18850
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No.6001 of 2025
------
Lakhan Murmu .... .... Petitioner
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation .... Opp. Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
------
For the Petitioner : Mrs. Jasvinder Mazumdar, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate.
------
02/Dated: 11th July, 2025
1. The instant application has been filed under Sections
483 and 484 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 for grant of regular
bail to the petitioner, in connection with R.C. Case No.
7(A)/2016 (D) registered for the offence under Section
120B read with Section 406, 409, 420, 467, 468 and
471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) of the
read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 as well as Section 66 and 66(C) of
the I.T Act, 2000, pending in the court of learned Spl.
Judge, CBI-cum-Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dhanbad.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has
submitted that although the prayer for bail of the
present petitioner has been rejected twice but again
prayer for bail has been renewed on the ground that
there is no substantial progress in the trial as out of the
59 witnesses only 9 witnesses has been examined
2025:JHHC:18850
though the charge has been framed long back on
28.03.2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further taken the
ground of long incarceration as he is in custody since
28.12.2021 and there is no likelihood of completion of
trial in near future. Submission has been made that
since the charge-sheet has been submitted that charge
has also been framed, as such there is no chance of
tampering with the evidence and since the petitioner is
an Officer in the bank, as such there is no chance of his
absconding.
4. While on the other hand, learned counsel appearing for
the Opp. Party-CBI has opposed the prayer for bail so
far the issue on merit is concerned, however, he is fair
enough to admit the fact that out of the 59 charge-
sheeted witnesses only 9 witnesses has been examined
till date and further he has no instruction with respect
to pruning of the number of the witnesses.
5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties
and gone through the materials available on record.
6. The ground has been taken that there is no substantial
progress in the trial as out of the 59 witnesses only 9
witnesses has been examined though the charge has
been framed long back on 28.03.2022 and further
petitioner has taken the ground of long incarceration as
2025:JHHC:18850
he is in custody since 28.12.2021 and there is no
likelihood of completion of trial in near future. Therefore,
prayer has been made that as per law laid down in the
case of Union of India Vrs. K.A. Najeeb, reported in
[(2021) 3 SCC 713], the petitioner may be enlarged on
bail.
7. This Court in order to appreciate the aforesaid ground
deems it fit and proper to refer the relevant paragraph of
judgment rendered in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb
(supra), relevant paragraph of which is quoted as under:
"17. It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory
restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA per se
does not oust the ability of the constitutional courts to
grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the
Constitution. Indeed, both the restrictions under a
statute as well as the powers exercisable under
constitutional jurisdiction can be well harmonised.
Whereas at commencement of proceedings, the courts
are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against
grant of bail but the rigours of such provisions will melt
down where there is no likelihood of trial being
completed within a reasonable time and the period of
incarceration already undergone has exceeded a
substantial part of the prescribed sentence. Such an
approach would safeguard against the possibility of
provisions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA being used
as the sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale
breach of constitutional right to speedy trial.
18. Adverting to the case at hand, we are conscious of
the fact that the charges levelled against the
respondent are grave and a serious threat to societal
harmony. Had it been a case at the threshold, we
would have outrightly turned down the respondent's
2025:JHHC:18850
prayer. However, keeping in mind the length of the
period spent by him in custody and the unlikelihood of
the trial being completed anytime soon, the High Court
appears to have been left with no other option except to
grant bail. An attempt has been made to strike a
balance between the appellant's right to lead evidence
of its choice and establish the charges beyond any
doubt and simultaneously the respondent's rights
guaranteed under Part III of our Constitution have been
well protected."
8. It is evident from the factual aspect that in the said case
altogether 276 charge-sheeted witnesses were to be
examined and on the pin-pointed question by the
Hon'ble Apex Court, the investigating agency has
submitted that there is no question of reducing the
number of charge-sheeted witnesses and in view thereof
and considering the period of custody, i.e., more than 5
and half years and also taking into consideration the
spirit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India the
Hon'ble Apex Court has not interfered with the order by
which the bail was granted to respondent-accused.
9. This Court considering the aforesaid fact as also
considering the fact that out of the 59 charge-sheeted
witnesses only 9 witnesses have been examined though
charge has been framed long back on 28.03.2022, as
such even after lapse of 3 and ½ years only 9 witnesses
have been examined. Hence, there is no likelihood of
early conclusion of the trial rather if proportion of
2025:JHHC:18850
examination of witnesses will be taken into
consideration then perhaps the trial will take more than
one and half decade, if the trial is not expedited.
10. This Court considering the aforesaid fact and the law
laid down in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb
(supra) and taking into consideration the period of
custody, is of the view that the instant bail application
deserves to be allowed.
11. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands allowed.
12. In consequence thereof, the petitioner, named above, is
directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned
learned Spl. Judge, CBI-cum-Additional Sessions Judge-
II, Dhanbad in connection with R.C. Case No. 7(A)/2016
(D), subject to the condition that the petitioner shall co-
operate in the trial, failing which, the learned trial court
is at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with
law.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
Alankar/-
