Jharkhand High Court
Basant Paswan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 March, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Gautam Kumar Choudhary
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 204 of 2025
----
Basant Paswan ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-------
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Rishi Pallav, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, PP
--------
th
Order No. 03 : Dated 20 March, 2025
1. The instant appeal filed, under Section 21(4) of the
National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against
the order dated 01.02.2025 passed in Misc. Cr. Application
No. 211 of 2025 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chatra
in connection with Pratappur P. S. Case No. 68 of 2009
corresponding to G.R. No. 993 of 2009, registered under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 of the Indian Penal Code; Sectin
17(i) (ii) CLA Act; Section 27 of the Arms act; Section 3/4/5 of
the Explosive Substance Act and section 10/13 of the UAP
Act; whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of
the appellant, has been rejected.
2. It has been contended on behalf of appellant that the
appellant is the Assistant Teacher since 2006 having no
concerned with the extremist group and has voluntarily
surrendered before the trial Court on 24.01.2025 and since
then he is languishing in judicial custody.
3. Further, in the FIR, there is no specific allegation of
firing which can be attributed against the appellant and no
incriminating article has been recovered from the conscious
possession of the appellant.
4. Furthermore, the other co-accused persons, namely,
Arbind Paswan had been granted bail in B.A. No. 2552/2010;
Binod Paswan @ Baban Paswan had been granted bail by the
in B.A. No 184/2013 vide order dated 12.03.2013, Madan
Bhuiyan @ Basudeo Bhuiyan has been granted bail by this
Court in B.A. No. 1978/2014 vide order dated 27.03.2014,
Naresh Bhuiyan @Naresh Bharti has been granted bail by
this Court in B.A. No. 4994 of 2015 vide order dated
11.08.2015 and Maheshi Yadav @ Raghubansh Jee has been
granted bail by the Hon'ble Court in B.A. No. 1753 of 2017
vide order dated 09.03.2017.
5. The co-accused namely, co-accused Naresh Bhuiyan
@Naresh Bharti @ Niranjan has been acquitted vide judgment
dated 05th March, 2015 passed in in Sessions Trial Case No.
86 of 2015. Whereas, Baban Paswan @ Mukdar Ji @ Binod
Paswan and Madan Ji @ Madan Bhuiyan have been acquitted
vide judgment dated 06th December, 2017 passed in
Sessions Trial Case No. 253 of 2012/Sessions Trial Case No.
39/2013 by the Trail Court.
6. Therefore, submission has been made by learned
counsel for the appellant that the impugned order may be
quashed and set aside.
7. While on the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for
the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail,
however, he does not dispute the fact that other co-accused
persons have been granted bail and some co-accused persons
have been acquitted of the charges leveled against them.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
across the finding recorded by the learned court in the
impugned order as the order granting bail to the co-accused
persons.
9. Admittedly, the other co-accused persons namely,
Arbind Paswan had been granted bail in B.A. No. 2552/2010;
Binod Paswan @ Baban Paswan had been granted bail by the
in B.A. No 184/2013 vide order dated 12.03.2013, Madan
Bhuiyan @ Basudeo Bhuiyan has been granted bail by this
Court in B.A. No. 1978/2014 vide order dated 27.03.2014,
Naresh Bhuiyan @Naresh Bharti has been granted bail by
this Court in B.A. No. 4994 of 2015 vide order dated
11.08.2015 and Maheshi Yadav @ Raghubansh Jee has been
granted bail by the Hon'ble Court in B.A. No. 1753 of 2017
vide order dated 09.03.2017, therefore, there is no reason to
take distinct view, so far as the case of the present appellant
is concerned.
10. Furthermore, some of the co-accused persons have been
acquitted of the charges leveled against them, as would be
evident from Annexure 3 and 3/1 to the memo of appeal.
11. In view thereof, the impugned order requires
interference by this Court.
12. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 01.02.2025
passed in Misc. Cr. Application No. 211 of 2025 by the
learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chatra in connection with
Pratappur P. S. Case No. 68 of 2009 corresponding to G.R.
No. 993 of 2009, is hereby quashed and set aside.
13. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.
14. 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 Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Chatra in connection with
Pratappur P. S. Case No. 68 of 2009 corresponding to G.R.
No. 993 of 2009, 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.
15. 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.
16. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Alankar/
