Jharkhand High Court
Hari Mahato @ Rohit Mahato vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 March, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1419 of 2024
---------
Hari Mahato @ Rohit Mahato
... ... 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. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate
For the Resp-State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P.
Mr. Sachin Kumar, A.A.G.II
For the Informant : Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, Advocate
-----------
th
08/Dated: 4 March, 2025
1. Mrs. Vandana Dadel, at present holding the post of Principal
Secretary Department of Home, Government of Jharkhand and Mr.
T. Kandasamy Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Ranchi have
appeared in person in pursuance of the order dated 03.03.2025.
2. The Court has directed on the basis of the affidavit filed on her
behalf on 01.03.2025 regarding the issue of interaction about the
situation of pending samples awaiting for its final report from the
laboratory which is available in annexure-B issued under the
Signature of Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Ranchi, as
contained in letter No.240/Go dated 28.02.2025. The said letter is
having with the tabular chart showing the cases received, cases
disposed and cases pending.
3. It appears from the said tabular chart from 2015 to 2019 whatever
cases have been received all have been disposed of showing the
number of cases under the caption head "cases pending" as 'o'
(zero). The situation seems to be worse from the year 2020 till 2024
and even up to 27.02.2025 wherein the number of pending cases
have been shown to be 188, 335, 459, 567, 1700 and 846 up to
27.02.2025 and the total cases pending has been shown to be 4095.
The number of pending cases is in increasing rate. The situation has
become more worse in year 2024 with a number of pending cases
have gone upto 1700.
4. We are now at the era of new criminal laws where the report from
the F.S.L. has been said to be mandatory. The question which shocks
the conscience of this Court that even if the number of pending cases
of year 2020 which is 188, will be disposed of as of now, then what
will be its effects, since, after the lapse of more than four years, there
is no possibility to have the justifiable report, since, in the matter of
the laboratory test under the Forensic Science Laboratory, time is the
essence. The more time will be allowed to expire, the sample will
lost its sanctity for the purpose for which the report has been sought
for by the Investigating Agency and that is the main concern of the
Court.
5. We have seen in so many judgments that in the matter of POCSO or
N.D.P.S. or any nature of crimes where the Investigating Agency has
sent the samples to the F.S.L., the report is coming under the
conclusive part that either the D.N.A. profile could not have been
generated or the force of sample has lost its sanctity due to lapse of
time.
6. The Secretary Home has also seen and has admitted the aforesaid
fact by saying that after the enactment of new criminal laws, the
F.S.L. report is having more concern in the matter of trial. Although,
the new criminal laws have been enacted, but even prior to the same
the sanctity of report used to be considered by the investigators and
that is the reason, Forensic Science Laboratory has been established
by incurring huge public money, but due to the pending cases as is
being shown from 2022 to 27.02.2025, this Court is constraint to
observe that the purpose for which, Forensic Science Laboratory has
been established is not making sense in fulfilling its object.
7. The Secretary, Home has submitted that the reason is the shortage of
workforce. It has been contended that the advertisement for fulfilling
the vacant posts in the F.S.L. for the 26 posts of Assistant Director,
32 posts of Scientific Assistant, 3 posts of Viscera Cutter and 11
posts of Lab Attendants are vacant. It has been stated by the
Secretary, Home that the advertisement although was floated during
the time when the State of Jharkhand has come out with a
recruitment rule, but the same has been challenged by one Sushil
Hansda by filing a Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The said recruitment rule (Niyojan Niti) has
been quashed by this Court.
8. It has been stated that the amended rule has come and based upon
that the requisition has been made to the recruiting agency i.e.
Jharkhand Public Service Commission so far as the recruitment for
the post of 26 posts of Assistant Director are concerned and
Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission so far the recruitment for the
post of 32 posts of Scientific Assistant, 3 posts of Viscera Cutter and
11 posts of Lab Attendants are concerned. It has been stated that as
yet the advertisement has not been published.
9. This Court in view thereof is of the view that the Jharkhand Public
Service Commission through its Chairman and Jharkhand Staff
Selection Commission through its Chairman are required to
impleaded as party for expediting the process of recruitment.
10. Let the necessary addition of Jharkhand State Public Service
Commission through its Chairman and Jharkhand Staff Selection
Commission through its Chairman be made party in the arrays of the
respondent in the course of the day.
11. Let the name of Mr. Sanjay Piparwall, learned retained counsel for
the J.P.S.C. be reflected in the daily cause list who has been reported
to the retained counsel for both the recruitment agencies i.e.
Jharkhand Public Service Commission and Jharkhand Staff Selection
Commission.
12. So far as the equipments are concerned, it has been stated by the
Director, F.S.L, who is an I.P.S. Officer of 1997 Batch that the
requisition has been made to the Department of Home.
13. The Secretary Home has assured this Court that whatever requisition
has been made with respect to purchase of equipments that will be
personally monitored by her so that the equipments be purchased
without any unnecessary delay. It needed to be referred herein to say
that in the purchasing process, the process in accordance with law is
to be there.
14. This Court has also posed a question that how the efficiency of the
laboratory can be said to be perfect if there is no posting of the
Director having expertise in the subject. We are not questioning the
acumen of present incumbent, who is an I.P.S. Officer of 1997 Batch
but the question is that the nature of work, he is performing is not
available to be performed by him in absence of any expertise in the
field. The Secretary, Home has accepted the aforesaid fact and has
submitted that she will take necessary endeavor in this regard.
15. The matter is being posted after four weeks so as to see the update in
the issue of recruitment and the purchase of equipments.
16. Let further affidavit be filed in this regard.
17. Let the case be posted on 2nd April, 2025.
18. Let the copy of this appeal be handed over to Mr. Sanjay Piparwall,
learned retained counsel for the J.P.S.C. in the course of the day.
19. The Secretory Home, Mrs. Vandana Dadel and Mr. T. Kandasamy,
Director, F.S.L. Ranchi are hereby dispensed with from personal
appearance.
In Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1419 of 2024
1. The instant criminal appeal has been filed under Section 21(4) of the
National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dated
10.07.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Chaibasa,
whereby and whereunder the regular bail of the appellant in in
connection with S.T. Case No.217 of 2023 vide M.C.A. No. 767 of
2024 arising out of Chakradharpur P.S. Case No. 131 of 2022 registered
under Sections 302, 34 of the I.P.C., under Section 27 of the Arms Act,
under Sections 3, 4, 5 of the Explosive Substance Act and Section 25(1-
a), 25(1-b)(a), 26, 35 of the Arms Act, has been rejected.
2. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant
that it is a case where merely on the ground of recovery of a pistol said
to be used in commission of crime, the appellant has been implicated in
the criminal case. It has been contended that the said revolver has never
been sent to any of the laboratory to ascertain the use of the said
revolver in commission of crime.
3. At best, due to recovery of said pistol from the possession of the present
appellant, it can be a case of Arms Act, but no complicity of the present
appellant has been connected with the commission of crime of murder
for which the present case is there in which the present appellant is
languishing in judicial custody.
4. The submission has been made that the appellant is in judicial custody
since 03.07.2023, in which the charge-sheet has already been submitted
and the trial is going on.
5. It has been contended that out of 32 witnesses, only 13 witnesses have
been examined and as such there is no likelihood of the trial to be
concluded in near future. However, it has been submitted that a criminal
antecedent has been shown against the appellant, which is of the year
2015 and the case is shown to be registered under Section 498 A of the
I.P.C., but on verification from the record, the accused in the said case is
not the appellant but some other person.
6. It has been submitted that one of the co-accused person namely
Abhisekh Kasera @ Abhishek Kumar Kasera has been directed to be
released on bail vide order dated 28.02.2025 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB)
No.1172 of 2024 and the case of the present appellant is on better
footing.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant on the aforesaid ground has submitted
that it is a fit case to interfere with the impugned order.
8. While on the other hand, Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor and Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, learned counsel
appearing for the informant have jointly opposed the prayer to interfere
with the impugned order.
9. It has been contended that the pistol which has been recovered from the
possession of the present appellant has been authenticated to be used in
the commission of crime as per the report furnished by Sargent Major,
who has been examined as P.W.5. It has been contended that since, the
trial is in progress and at this stage, it will be not be proper to direct the
appellant to be released from the judicial custody.
10.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through
the findings recorded by the learned court below in the impugned
order and also the case diary.
11.This Court in order to appreciate the argument advanced on behalf of
the appellant regarding his acquisition which is based upon the
recovery of one revolver from the house of the present appellant has
gone through the case diary and has found that the said pistol
admittedly, has not been sent to the laboratory for its Ballistic Test.
However, it has been submitted on behalf of the respondent-State and
the informant that P.W.5, Sargent Major has authenticated the said
revolver in the active condition.
12.This Court even on the basis of said submission is of the view that
merely because the revolver was in active condition, the use of the
said revolver cannot be connected with the commission of crime
unless there is specific report to that effect from the expert that is the
Ballistic Report.
13.We have also examined the case of Abhisekh Kasera @ Abhishek
Kumar Kasera, who has been directed to be released on bail vide
order dated 28.02.2025 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1172 of 2024
and found that allegation against Abhisekh Kasera @ Abhishek Kumar
Kasera was that he was doing a reki for the purpose of locating the
movement of the deceased whereas no such allegation is there against
the present appellant save and except, that the revolver said to be
used in commission of crime was recovered from the house of the
present appellant, but in absence of any Ballistic Report, the same
cannot be said to be used in the commission of crime.
14.We have also gone through the medical report as available in the case
diary that the injury has been shown to be from the explosive. The
appellant is in judicial custody since 03.07.2023. The other co-
accused Abhisekh Kasera @ Abhishek Kumar Kasera, appellant of Cr.
Appeal (DB) No.1172 of 2024, has been directed to be released on
bail, therefore, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to interfere
with the impugned order.
15.Accordingly, the order dated 10.07.2024 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge-III, Chaibasa, in Chakradharpur P.S. Case
No. 131 of 2022, is hereby quashed and set aside.
16.In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.
17.In consequence thereof, the appellant, above named, 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 the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Chaibasa, in
Chakradharpur P.S. Case No. 131 of 2022 subject to the condition
that the appellant will co-operate in the trial and shall appear on each
and every date before the learned trial court, failing which, the
learned trial court is at liberty to take appropriate course in
accordance with law and; further subject to the condition that one of
the bailors should be the father of the appellant and in case of his/her
father being no more, a close relative of the appellant, which is to be
accompanied by affidavit justifying that such bailor is close relative
of the appellant.
18. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of.
19.The issue of present appeal which was the issue of bail so far as the
present appellant is concerned has been disposed of as per above
order.
20.Let the matter be posted for the issue of F.S.L as referred hereinabove
on 02nd April, 2025.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Amar/Pappu/-
