IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.758 of 2024 ----- Shobhit Sharma @ Raja @ Abhisek Jee, aged about 24 years, son of Murari Sharma, R/o Mines Colony, Q. No. 317, dhamdhamiya PO + PS- Mcckuskiganj, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand) ....... … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent With Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.759 of 2024 ----- Irfan Ansari @ Tufan Ji aged about 43 years,son Sahadat Ansari, R/o Murpa PO + PS-Balumath, District-Latehar (Jharkhand) ....... … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent With Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.760 of 2024 ----- Sandeep Lohra @ Balwant Jee, aged about 26 years, s/o Bharat Lohra, r/o Jamunadhauda PO + PS-Khelari, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand) ....... … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent ------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ------- For the Appellants : Mr. Sahay Gaurav Piyush, Advocate (In all the cases) For the Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, APP Mrs. Lily Sahay, APP Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey, APP ------ Order No.10/Dated: 6th February, 2025 1. All these criminal appeals have been taken together with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, since, these appeals arose out of the same FIR and all have been filed under section 21(4) of the NIA Act. 2. Criminal Appeal (DB) No.758 of 2024 and Criminal Appeal (DB) No.759 of 2024 have been directed against the common order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chatra in Misc. 2 Criminal Application No.408 of 2024 and Criminal Appeal (DB) No.760 of 2024 has been directed against the order dated 19.04.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chatra in Misc. Criminal Application No.439 of 2024 whereby and whereunder the prayers for regular bail of the appellants in connection with Piparwar P.S. Case No.06 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 25(1-A), 25(1-B)a, 26, 35 of the Arms Act, under Sections 17(i) (ii) of CLA Act and under Sections 16, 17,18,20 of UAP Act, have been rejected. 3. It needs to refer herein that the present case has been instituted under the UAP Act, but the investigation is being conducted by the State police. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted by showing the innocence of the appellants by agitating the point that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer to grant bail by interfering with the impugned order. It has been contended that the prayer for bail of the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1406 of 2024, namely, Masi Tigga @ Massi Tigga has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 06.02.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1406 of 2024. 6. It has also been contended that the implication of Masi Tigga @ Massi Tigga is based upon the confessional statement of Shobhit Sharma @ Raja @ Abhisek Jee who is the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.758 of 2024, Irfan Ansari @ Tufan Ji who is the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.759 of 2024 and Sandeep Lohra @ Balwant Jee, who is the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.760 of 2024. 3 7. It has been, therefore, contended that when the prayer of the regular bail of the appellant, namely, Masi Tigga @ Massi Tigga in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1406 of 2024, whose name has come in the FIR on the basis of confession of these appellants, has been rejected by this Court, hence, these criminal appeals are also fit to be rejected. 8. Upon this, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in these criminal appeals has submitted that he may be allowed to withdraw all these criminal appeals. 9. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, these criminal appeals being Criminal Appeal (DB) No.758 of 2024, Criminal Appeal (DB) No.759 of 2024 and Criminal Appeal (DB) No.760 of 2024 are hereby dismissed as withdrawn and disposed of as such. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Sudhir