- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 738 of 2024 ---- Satendra Yadav @ Dablu Yadav … … Appellant Versus State of Jharkhand … … Respondent ------- CORAM :HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Lily Sahay, APP -------- Order No. 04 : Dated 30th January, 2025 1. The instant appeal filed, under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 27.05.2024 passed in Misc. Cr. Application No. 277 of 2024 in connection with S.T. Case No. 221 of 2023 corresponding to Latehar P.S. Case No. 75 of 2022 and G.R. Case No. 253 of 2023 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Latehar, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 333, 353, 307, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code; 25(1-A), 25(1-AA) 25(1-AA), 26(2), 27 and 35 of the Arms Act; and 10, 13, and 16 of the U.A.P. Act, by which, the prayer for regular bail of the appellant, has been rejected. 2. It has been contended that though earlier the bail application of this appellant has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 10.01.2024 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1558 of 2023 but the appellant has renewed his prayer for bail mainly on the ground that similarly situated co-accused persons, namely, Rakesh Ganjhu @ Viraj Jee has been - 2 - granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.04.2024 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 2150 of 2023 and Bigan Bhuiyan have been granted bail vide order dated 09.05.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 176 of 2024. 3. Further submission has been made that the appellant has remained in judicial custody since 20.04.2023. 4. Therefore, submission has been made by learned counsel for the appellant that the case of the appellant is on similar footing and as such the impugned order requires interference by this Court. 5. Mrs. Lily Sahay, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has though opposed the prayer for bail, but, she has not disputed the fact that co-accused persons have been directed to be released on bail. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by the learned court in the impugned order as also the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench. 7. Admittedly, the co-accused persons, namely, Rakesh Ganjhu @ Viraj Jee has been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.04.2024 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 2150 of 2023; and Bigan Bhuiyan have been granted bail vide order dated 09.05.2024 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 176 of 2024, which fact has been admitted by the learned APP appearing for the State. - 3 - 8. Furthermore, the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 20.04.2023. 9. Considering the aforesaid fact of the matter, this Court is of the view that that there is no reason to take distinct view so far it relates to the case of present appellant and as such the impugned order requires interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27.05.2024 passed in Misc. Cr. Application No. 277 of 2024 in connection with S.T. Case No. 221 of 2023 corresponding to Latehar P.S. Case No. 75 of 2022 and G.R. Case No. 253 of 2023, is hereby quashed and set aside. 11. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed. 12. 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 Additional Sessions Judge-III, Latehar in connection with S.T. Case No. 221 of 2023 corresponding to Latehar P.S. Case No. 75 of 2022 and G.R. Case No. 253 of 2023 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Latehar, 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 - 4 - 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. 13. 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. 14. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Alankar/