Mohan Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 3982 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Mohan Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 June, 2025

Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Ambuj Nath

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1159 of 2018
         1. Mohan Yadav.
         2. Sanjeev Gorai @ Sanjiv Gorai @ Bangedi.
         3. Sudhir Dubey.
         4. Kanhaiya Singh                     --- ---         Appellants
                                    Versus
        The State of Jharkhand                 --- ---       Respondent
              ---
   CORAM:         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
                   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
              ---
        For the Appellant no. 3 :  Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Adv.
        For the Appellant no. 4 :  Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Adv.
        For the State           : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl. P.P.
                                         ---
    Order No. 27                                      Date: 17/06/2025
    I.A No. 1077 of 2020 with I.A. No. 1078 of 2020
Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. :

1. Heard Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned Spl.P.P., who has pressed I.A. No. 1077/2018 and I.A. No. 1078/2018 as well as Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant no. 3 and Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the appellant no. 4.

2. Both these interlocutory applications have been preferred by the State with a prayer for cancellation of bail granted by this court to the appellant nos. 3 and 4 vide separate orders dated 18- 02-2019 in I.A. No. 1432/19 and 07-03-2019 passed in I.A. No. 1898/2019 respectively.

3. The appellant no. 1 (Mohan Yadav), against the order dated 06-04-2022 passed in I.A. No. 7296/2021 which was with a prayer for grant of bail to him during the pendency of the appeal, had moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).- 8124/2023 in which an order was passed on 02-04- 2025 which reads as under:

"1. During hearing, it has been brought to our notice that the co-accused, namely, Sudhir Dubey and Kanhaiya Singh who were convicted and sentenced by the same order of the Sessions Court and similar to the petitioner whose jail sentences have 2 been suspended by the High Court in the year 2019 itself. The case of the petitioner is not distinguishable from them, hence even on parity he may be granted bail.

2. The state, by filing additional affidavit has brought to our notice that the application for cancellation the suspension of sentence is pending before the High Court in which time was granted to the accused persons to file counter affidavit.

3. As the application for cancellation of the suspension of sentence is pending before the High Court and the issue of parity has been raised before us, we deem it appropriate to request the High Court to decide the application for cancellation of suspension of sentence filed by the State at the earliest, as far as possible within one month.

4. A copy of this order be sent to the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi for listing the case within three days before the appropriate Bench for decision on the application for cancellation of suspension of sentence. We make it clear that the said application be decided on its own merits."

4. The appeal was preferred by four appellants against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30-07-2018 (sentence passed on 31-07-2018) by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Jamshedpur whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 302/120B IPC and the appellant nos. 1 and 2 have further been convicted for the offences under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and all the appellants have been sentenced accordingly.

Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1159 of 2018

5. The appellant no. 3 (Sudhir Dubey) had moved for grant of bail during the pendency of the appeal in I.A. No. 1432/2019 and vide order dated 18-02-2019, he was granted bail. Similarly, the appellant no. 4 (Kanhaiya Singh) had moved for grant of bail during pendency of the appeal in I.A. No. 1898/2019 which was allowed vide order dated 07-03-2019. The appellant No. 1 (Mohan Yadav) had also moved for grant of bail in I.A. No. 720/2020 which was rejected on 17-03-2020. The appellant no. 1 had renewed his bail for grant of bail in I.A. No. 7296/2021 which was once again rejected on 06-04-2022 against which the appellant no. 1 had moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court in which an order was passed on 02-04-2025 and which has been quoted hereinabove.

6. Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned Spl. P.P. in support of his prayer made for cancellation of the bail granted to the appellant nos. 3 and 4 has submitted that the evidence during trial and the confessional statements of the appellants reveal that these appellants were instrumental in providing cash and arms to the appellant no. 1 to commit the murder of Amit Rai. The recovery of arms and cartridges from the possession of the appellant nos. 3 and 4 has led to their conviction in Sonari P.S. Case No. 04/2017. It has been submitted that the appellant nos. 3 and 4 are close associates of Akhilesh Singh, a dreaded gangster of Jamshedpur, who is involved in extortion, threat and murder in his area of operation. There are 57 cases lodged against the gangster Akhilesh Singh. It has also been submitted that several cases of Akhilesh Singh are at the stage of trial and there is every possibility of the threat perception of the appellant nos. 3 and 4 to gain over the witnesses or intimidate them. The appellant no. 3 has eighteen (18) cases of heinous nature lodged against him, while the appellant no. 4 has thirteen (13) cases instituted against him. This would indicate that both are dreaded criminals. It has been submitted that due to the fear of these appellants, several businessmen are planning to leave Jamshedpur and several station diary entries Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1159 of 2018

have been made. Several criminal cases have also been instituted against the appellant nos. 3 and 4, the details of which have been enumerated as follows:

Cases registered against appellant no. 3, Sudhir Dubey-

(i) Sitaramdera P.S. Case No. 47/2020, date-

30.04.2020, u/s-188/269/270/120B/34 of IPC and 27 Arms Act.

(ii) Sitaramdera P.S. Case No. 45/2020, date-

30.04.2020, u/s- 324/326/307/34 of IPC and 27 Arms Act.

(iii) Telco P.S. Case No. 24/2021, date- 21.01.2021, u/s-

147/148/148/452/504/506/387/120B of IPC.

(iv) Telco P.S. Case No. 25/2021, date- 22.01.2021, u/s-

25(1-b)a/26/35 Arms Act and 120(B) of IPC.

Cases registered against appellant no. 4, Kanhaiya Singh-

(i) Sitaramdera P.S. Case No. 46/2020, date-

30.04.2020, u/s 147/148/149/307/290/504/506/ 120B of IPC and 27 Arms Act.

(ii) Sitaramdera P.S. Case No. 47/2020, date-

30.04.2020, u/s- 188/269/270/120B/34 of IPC and 27 Arms Act.

(iii) Sitaramdera P.S. Case No. 10/2023, date 28.01.2023, u/s- 25(1-b)a/25b/26/35 Arms Act.

(iv) Bagbera P.S. Case No. 65/2024, date- 02.05.2024, u/s 307/34/120B of IPC and 27 Arms Act.

(v) Bagbera P.S. Case No. 01/2023, date- 01.01.2023, u/s- 341/323/324/427/504/506 of IPC.

(vi) Bagbera P.S. Case No. 20/2022, date 11.02.2022, u/s- 147/148/149/450/307/504/506 of IPC.

(vii) Jugsalai P.S. Case No. 02/2023, date- 02.01.2023, u/s- 452/307/504/506 of IPC and 27 Arms Act.

Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1159 of 2018

7. Mr. Ojha has referred to the case of Somesh Chaurasia v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2021) 19 SCC 480 in support of his plea regarding cancellation of bail granted to the appellant nos. 3 and 4.

8. Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant no. 3 has submitted that imputation against Akhilesh Singh does not have any relevance with the subject matter of the present interlocutory applications. There is no reliable and authentic information on record suggestive of the fact that the appellant no. 3 had prevented the witnesses from appearing in the Court and have gained them over. It has been submitted that out of 18 criminal antecedents, the appellant no. 3 has been acquitted in most of them. Mr. Singh has further submitted that the appellant no. 3 is on bail in Sitaramdera P.S. Case No. 45/2020, Telco P.S. Case No. 25/2021, Telco P.S. Case No. 24/2021, Olidih P.S. Case No. 56/2021 and Sitaramdera P.S. Case No. 47/2020.

9. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the appellant no. 4 has submitted that after the appellant no. 4 was granted bail by the Court, 07 cases had been instituted against him in which he has been acquitted in Sitaramdera P.S. Case No. 47/2020 and in the rest 06 cases, he is on bail. Mr. Mazumdar has submitted that most of the cases are either relating to a civil dispute or is by way of retaliation to the cases filed by the appellant no. 4 or being implicated on the confessional statement of co- accused. Nothing has been brought on record by the State in support of the contention that the appellant no. 4 has tampered with the evidence or threatened the witnesses.

10. The orders granting bail to the appellant nos. 3 and 4 during the pendency of the appeal is on the anvil of absence of any eyewitnesses to the case and the confessional statement of co- accused persons. Mr. Ojha, learned Spl. P.P. has primarily focused on the supervening circumstances which is of the appellant nos. 3 and 4 indulging themselves in criminal activity after being granted Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1159 of 2018

bail by this Court.

11. In Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559, it has been held as follows:

"31. This Court has reiterated in several instances that bail once granted, should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during trial. Having said that, in case of cancellation of bail, very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing cancellation of bail (which was already granted).

32. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana [Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 237] laid down the grounds for cancellation of bail which are:

(i) interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice;

(ii) evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice;

(iii) abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner;

(iv) possibility of the accused absconding;

(v) likelihood of/actual misuse of bail;

(vi) likelihood of the accused tampering with the evidence or threatening witnesses.

33. It is no doubt true that cancellation of bail cannot be limited to the occurrence of supervening circumstances. This Court certainly has the inherent powers and discretion to cancel the bail of an accused even in the absence of supervening circumstances. Following are the illustrative circumstances where the Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1159 of 2018

bail can be cancelled:

33.1. Where the court granting bail takes into account irrelevant material of substantial nature and not trivial nature while ignoring relevant material on record.

33.2. Where the court granting bail overlooks the influential position of the accused in comparison to the victim of abuse or the witnesses especially when there is prima facie misuse of position and power over the victim.

33.3. Where the past criminal record and conduct of the accused is completely ignored while granting bail.

33.4. Where bail has been granted on untenable grounds.

33.5. Where serious discrepancies are found in the order granting bail thereby causing prejudice to justice.

33.6. Where the grant of bail was not appropriate in the first place given the very serious nature of the charges against the accused which disentitles him for bail and thus cannot be justified.

33.7. When the order granting bail is apparently whimsical, capricious and perverse in the facts of the given case.

34. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527] , the accused was granted bail by the High Court. In an appeal against the order [Mitthan Yadav v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 16031] of the High Court, a two-Judge Bench of this Court examined the precedents on the principles that guide

Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1159 of 2018

grant of bail and observed as under : (SCC p. 513, para 12) "12. ... It is well settled in law that cancellation of bail after it is granted because the accused has misconducted himself or of some supervening circumstances warranting such cancellation have occurred is in a different compartment altogether than an order granting bail which is unjustified, illegal and perverse. If in a case, the relevant factors which should have been taken into consideration while dealing with the application for bail have not been taken note of or it is founded on irrelevant considerations, indisputably the superior court can set aside the order of such a grant of bail. Such a case belongs to a different category and is in a separate realm. While dealing with a case of second nature, the court does not dwell upon the violation of conditions by the accused or the supervening circumstances that have happened subsequently. It, on the contrary, delves into the justifiability and the soundness of the order passed by the court."

35. This Court in Mahipal [Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 558] held that : (SCC p. 126, para 17) "17. Where a court considering an application for bail fails to consider relevant factors, an appellate court may justifiably set aside the order granting bail. An appellate court is thus required to consider whether the order granting bail suffers from a non-application of

Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1159 of 2018

mind or is not borne out from a prima facie view of the evidence on record. It is thus necessary for this Court to assess whether, on the basis of the evidentiary record, there existed a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the crime, also taking into account the seriousness of the crime and the severity of the punishment."

36. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta [Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta, (2011) 6 SCC 189 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 848] held that : (SCC p. 195, paras 18-19) "18. In considering whether to cancel the bail, the court has also to consider the gravity and nature of the offence, prima facie case against the accused, the position and standing of the accused, etc. If there are very serious allegations against the accused, his bail may be cancelled even if he has not misused the bail granted to him.

19. In our opinion, there is no absolute rule that once bail is granted to the accused then it can only be cancelled if there is likelihood of misuse of bail. That factor, though no doubt important, is not the only factor. There are several other factors also which may be seen while deciding to cancel the bail."

12. In Abdul Basit v. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhry reported in (2014) 10 SCC 754, while discussing the powers of the High Court to cancel bail granted to an accused under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C., it has been observed that typically the following Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1159 of 2018

conduct of the accused would result in the cancellation of bail--

(i) misuse of liberty by engaging in similar criminal activity;

(ii) interference with the course of investigation;

(iii) tampering of evidence or witnesses;

(iv) threatening of witnesses or engaging in similar activities which would hinder the investigation;

(v) possibility of fleeing to another country;

(vi) attempts to become scarce by becoming unavailable for investigation or going underground; and

(vii) being out of the reach of their surety.

Similar considerations govern the cancellation of bail at the post-conviction stage under the second proviso to Section 389(1) Cr.P.C.

13. In Somesh Chaurasia v. State of M.P. reported in (2021) 19 SCC 480, it has been held as follows:

"39. There are distinct doctrinal concepts in criminal law, namely,

(i) the grant of bail before trial or, what is described as the "pre-

conviction" stage;

(ii) setting aside an order granting bail when the principles which must weigh in the decision on whether bail should be granted have been overlooked or wrongly applied;

(ii) the post-conviction suspension of sentence under the provisions of Section 389(1); and

(iv) the cancellation of bail on the ground of supervening events, such as the conduct of the

Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1159 of 2018

accused during the period of bail, vitiating the continuance of bail.

14. Though the order granting bail to the appellant nos. 3 and 4 does not seem to reflect about their criminal antecedents, but at the same time, we must also take into note that in most of the cases, both the appellants have been acquitted. So far as the cases instituted post grant of bail to the appellant nos. 3 and 4 is concerned, they have been granted bail as stated in their respective affidavits. In the recent affidavit filed by the State, mention has been made of 04 cases instituted after the appellant no. 3 was granted bail and the last case instituted was on 22-01-

2021. No mention has been made of any case instituted after 2021. So far as the appellant no. 4 is concerned, out of the 07 cases instituted, 03 cases are of the year 2022, 2023 and 2024 and the commonality of these cases are the presence of Monu Singh, who seems to be an adversary to the appellant no. 4. In one case being Sitaramdera P.S. Case No. 47/2020, the appellant no. 4 has been acquitted by the learned trial court. Barring the criminal cases instituted at the behest of Monu Singh, there has been a lull in the purported criminal activities of the appellant no. 4. It also seems that the prosecution has not been able to secure conviction in any case, except the present one and in most of the cases instituted against the appellant nos. 3 and 4, they have been acquitted. In view of the aforesaid, therefore, we are not inclined to cancel the bail granted to the appellant nos. 3 and 4 in I.A. No. 1432/2019 and I.A. No. 1898/2019 dated 18-02-2019 and 07-03-2019 respectively and consequently, the present interlocutory applications stand dismissed.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

(Ambuj Nath, J.)

Preet/-

Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1159 of 2018