[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Ramashish Yadav @ Chalitar Yadav Aged ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 March, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2026:JHHC:7863-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1377 of 2025
------
Ramashish Yadav @ Chalitar Yadav aged about 31 years, Son of
Bhuneshwar Yadav Resident of Vill-Kendua, P.O- and P.S-Gidhour,
District-Chatra .... .... 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. Rajesh Kr. Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P.
------
06/Dated: 20.03.2026
1. The instant appeal preferred under Section 21(4) of the National
Investigation Agency Act, is directed against the order dated
21.07.2025 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No.1351 of 2025 by
the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Chatra, in connection with S.T.
Case No.115 of 2024, arising out of Sadar P.S. Case No.390 of 2022
registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 427, 435, 387
and 506 of the IPC, Sections 10 and 13 of U.A.(P) Act and Section 17
of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, whereby and whereunder, the
prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been rejected.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the
implication of the present appellant in the present case is only on the
basis of secret information furnished by the spy and save and except,
no incriminating materials have been found to be recovered in course
of investigation.
3. It has been submitted that several accused persons, namely,
Maninath Ganjhu, Nand Kishor Lohra, Kuldeep Ganjhu and Baban
Bhokta @ Baban Ganjhu @ Baban Ji @ Baban Singh Bhokta have
2026:JHHC:7863-DB
been directed to be released on bail by this Court, vide orders dated
19.07.2023, 20.04.2023, 09.08.2023 and 30.09.2024 passed in Cr.
Appeal (DB) Nos.430 of 2023, 342 of 2023, 583 of 2023 and 1135 of
2024 respectively.
4. It has also been submitted that the case of the present appellant
is identical to that of aforesaid accused persons, who have been
directed to be released on bail by this Court.
5. It has further been submitted that the appellant is languishing in
judicial custody since 20.04.2023, i.e., for the period of about 3 years.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid
grounds, has submitted that it is a fit case to interfere with the order
impugned.
7. While on the other hand, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor
appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for regular
bail. But, she is fair enough to admit the fact that several accused
persons have been directed to be released on bail, as per the order
appended and another order dated 30.09.2024 passed by this Court in
the case of Baban Bhokta @ Baban Ganjhu @ Baban Ji @ Baban
Singh Bhokta in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1135 of 2024.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
9. The ground of parity is the main ground taken for showing
interference with the order impugned.
10. This Court, being conscious of the applicability of the principle of
parity, has gone through the imputation made against the present
appellant as per the imputation made in the first information report as
also the fact with respect to several accused persons, namely,
2026:JHHC:7863-DB
Maninath Ganjhu, Nand Kishor Lohra, Kuldeep Ganjhu and Baban
Bhokta @ Baban Ganjhu @ Baban Ji @ Baban Singh Bhokta who
have been directed to be released on bail by this Court, vide orders
dated 19.07.2023, 20.04.2023, 09.08.2023 and 30.09.2024 passed in
Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.430 of 2023, 342 of 2023, 583 of 2023 and 1135
of 2024 respectively.
11. This Court, taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, has found
that the nature of allegation alleged to have been committed by the
present appellant is identical to that of the accused persons who have
been directed to be released on bail.
12. This Court, also after having gone through the status report,
which has been called for by this Court vide order dated 15 th January,
2026, has found that out of ten witnesses, one witness has been
examined and the last witness was examined on 05.08.2024 as per the
report as contained in letter no.46/2026 dated 21.01.2026.
13. This Court, considering the fact that several accused persons,
namely, Maninath Ganjhu, Nand Kishor Lohra, Kuldeep Ganjhu and
Baban Bhokta @ Baban Ganjhu @ Baban Ji @ Baban Singh Bhokta
have been directed to be released on bail by this Court, vide orders
dated 19.07.2023, 20.04.2023, 09.08.2023 and 30.09.2024 passed in
Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.430 of 2023, 342 of 2023, 583 of 2023 and 1135
of 2024 respectively and further, last witness was examined only on
05.08.2024 as per the report as contained in letter no.46/2026 dated
21.01.2026, hence, is of the view that the order impugned needs to be
interfered with.
14. Moreover, the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since
2026:JHHC:7863-DB
20.04.2023, i.e., for the period of about 3 years.
15. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.07.2025 passed in
Misc. Criminal Application No.1351 of 2025 by the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge-II, Chatra, 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.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty
Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Chatra, in connection
with S.T. Case No.115 of 2024, arising out of Sadar P.S. Case No.390 of
2022. Since the trial is in progress, as such, the bail is subject to the
conditions that the appellant shall appear on each and every date and shall
not absent himself on the date fixed without any cogent cause. If the
petitioner found in any way interfering with the progress of trial or found to
be involved in any like nature of crime, the learned trial 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.
18. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
20.03.2026
Rohit/-
