Jharkhand High Court
Nitish Kumar @ Nitish Kumar Rawani vs The State Of Jharkhand on 26 March, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.314 of 2025
-----
Nitish Kumar @ Nitish Kumar Rawani, aged about 32 years, son of
Sagar Kahar, Loyabad Coke Plant, Jyoti Nagar, Mishirdi, PS-Loyabad,
PO-Bansjora, District-Dhanbad ....... ... 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. Akhilesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. B.N. Ojha, Spl.PP
------
th
Order No.04/Dated: 26 March 2025
1. The instant appeal under section 21(4) of the National
Investigation Agency Act, 2008 has been directed against the
order dated 05.02.2025 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-VII,
Dhanbad in Bail Petition No. 86 of 2025 whereby and whereunder the
prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with Putki PS
Case No.23 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 147/ 148/
149/ 323/ 337/ 353/307/387/120(B) of the IPC, Sections 3/4/5 of the
Explosive Substance Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act has been
rejected.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that
it is a case where the appellant has falsely been implicated.
3. The submission has also been made that nothing incriminating
has been recovered from the conscious possession of the present
appellant. It has been contended that there are general and omnibus
allegations against the present appellant in the FIR.
4. It has been contended that the co-accused persons, namely,
Akshay Kumar Yadav @ Akshay Yadav has been granted bail vide
order dated 19.06.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.490 of 2024 and
Sonu Yadav @ Sonu Gope has been granted bail vide order dated
30.04.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.462 of 2024 by a co-
ordinate Bench of this Court.
5. It has been contended that the case of the present appellant is
identical to that of the said co-accused, namely, Akshay Kumar Yadav
@ Akshay Yadav and Sonu Yadav @ Sonu Gope, who have been
directed to be released on bail by the order of a co-ordinate Bench of
this Court.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid
ground, has submitted that the impugned order may be interfered with.
7. While on the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant stating that the
nature of allegation said to be committed by the appellant is serious,
however, he has not disputed the fact that the co-accused persons,
namely, Akshay Kumar Yadav @ Akshay Yadav and Sonu Yadav @
Sonu Gope have been directed to be released on bail by the order of a
co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone
across the findings recorded by the learned trial Court in the impugned
judgment as also the testimonies of the witnesses and other material
exhibits available therein.
9. The main ground taken on behalf of the appellant is that the
case of the present appellant is on similar footing of the co-accused,
namely, Akshay Kumar Yadav @ Akshay Yadav and Sonu Yadav @
Sonu Gope, who have been directed to be released on bail by the order
passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
10. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the principle of parity is
to be made applicable in the present case and, accordingly, we are of
the view that the appellant has been able to make out a case for grant of
bail and the impugned order needs to be interfered with.
11. Accordingly, the order impugned dated 05.02.2025 passed by
the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-VII, Dhanbad in Bail Petition No. 86
of 2025 in connection with Putki PS Case No.23 of 2024, so far as it
relates to the present appellant is concerned, is hereby, quashed and set
aside.
12. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.
13. 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in
connection with Putki PS Case No.23 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 trial court shall
have liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law so that
trial be not hindered.
14. I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Sudhir
