Jharkhand High Court
Yakub Kerketta vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 March, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1091 of 2024
------
Yakub Kerketta, aged about 32 years, son of Fransis Kerketta,
resident of Village Murumkela, Chamartoli, P.O. and P.S. Kamdara,
District Gumla, Jharkhand .... .... 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. Kripa Shankar Nanda, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, APP
------
03/Dated: 27.03.2025
1. The instant appeal preferred under Section 21(4) of the National
Investigation Agency Act, is directed against the order dated
14.05.2024 passed in B.P. No.389 of 2024 by the learned District &
Addl. Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Gumla, in connection with
S.T. No.213 of 2018 arising out of Kamdara P.S. Case No.31 of 2017,
registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 307, 420, 414/149
of the IPC, Sections 25(1-b)a, 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act, Section
10 of U.A.(P) Act and Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act, whereby and
whereunder, the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been
rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant primarily has taken the ground
of long incarceration. The submission has been made that out of 11
witnesses, only four witnesses have been examined and as such, it is a
fit case where the impugned order needs to be interfered with.
3. While on the other hand, learned APP for the respondent-State
has vehemently opposed the prayer to interfere with the impugned
order dated 14.05.2024 on the ground that the case of the appellant
has earlier been dealt with by this Court vide order dated 22.01.2024
passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.798 of 2023 on merit and as such no
fresh ground except period of custody is available to the appellant.
4. It has been contended that while dismissing the said appeal, the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in addition to the alleged involvement
of the present appellant in the said offence has also taken in to
consideration the pending criminal cases against the appellant, which is
13 in numbers. Further, from the perusal of order dated 22.01.2024
passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.798 of 2023 it is evident that the question
of progress of trial had also been taken in to consideration by the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court .
5. It has been contended that now the trial is at progress and out of
11 witnesses, only 7 seven witnesses are to be examined. It has further
been contended that the prosecution witnesses will be produced
without any further delay so that the trial be concluded at an early date.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone
across the reasoning so recorded by the learned trial Court in the
impugned order as also the case diary, and the order passed by this
Court vide order dated 22.01.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.798 of
2023 dealing with the issue of bail on earlier occasion filed on behalf of
the appellant.
7. It appears from the order dated 22.01.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal
(DB) No.798 of 2023 that the case of the appellant has been dealt with
by passing an order taking into consideration the culpability said to be
committed by the appellant as has been found in the case diary.
8. It has further been taken into consideration that the appellant is a
member of banned extremist organization, PLFI having 13 criminal
antecedents at that time and now, there are 15 criminal antecedents
pending against the appellant.
9. Herein, the FIR is also under Section 10 of the U.A.(P) Act 1967
and the present appeal is by way of renewing the prayer for regular bail
on the ground of long incarceration, since on the merit the case of the
appellant has already been adjudicated by the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.798 of 2023 whereby vide order dated
22.01.2024, the prayer for bail of the appellant has already been
rejected.
10. We are not in dispute regarding the principle as has been laid
down under Article 21 of the Constitution of India but as per the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Gurwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another reported in
2024 SCC OnLine SC 109, wherein, the law has been laid down that
even in the matter of U.A.(P) Act, in order to maintain the balance since
the U.A.(P) matters relate to the issue of national security, merely on
the ground of long incarceration, the bail is not to be granted, the
relevant paragraph of the said judgment is being referred as under:-
46. As already discussed, the material available on record
indicates the involvement of the appellant in furtherance of terrorist
activities backed by members of banned terrorist organisation
involving exchange of large quantum of money through different
channels which needs to be deciphered and therefore in such a
scenario if the appellant is released on bail there is every
likelihood that he will influence the key witnesses of the case
which might hamper the process of justice. Therefore, mere delay
in trial pertaining to grave offences as one involved in the instant
case cannot be used as a ground to grant bail. Hence, the
aforesaid argument on behalf of the appellant cannot be accepted.
11. Further, it is considered view of this Court that in the matter of
serious nature of offence which has been found to be against the
interest of the nation then Article 21 will not be said to be applicable
reason being that a balance is to be maintain between the national
security and personal liberty.
12. Moreover, as per the status report which was called for vide order
dated 30.01.2025, out of 11 witnesses, 4 witnesses have already been
examined and 7 witnesses are to be examined.
13. Learned State Counsel has undertaken before this Court that
sincere endeavour will be taken to produce the witnesses so that the
trial be expedited and concluded without any unnecessary delay.
14. This Court, considering the aforesaid fact coupled with the fact
that the appellant is having 15 criminal antecedents of like nature and
he is the Area Commander of the banned extremist organization (PLFI),
is of the view that it is not a case where the order impugned needs to
be interfered with. However, the trial be expedited.
15. In the result, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Rohit/-
