IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.1489 of 2024 ----- Hemant Kumar Singh @ Hemant Kumar @ Mantu aged about 33 years, s/o Shiv Pujan Singh, Permanent R/o village-Jhikatiya, PO-Navin Nagar, PS-Tandwa, District-Aurangabad (Bihar), at present Near Tender Bagicha, Kathitanr, PO & PS-Ratu, District-Ranchi … … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent ------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR ------- For the Appellant : Mr. Razaullah Ansari, Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P. ------ Order No.5 /Dated:29th January, 2025 1. The instant appeal under section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 has been directed against the order dated 13.09.2024 passed by the learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner-X, Ranchi in Misc. Cr. Application No. 2484 of 2024 whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with S.T. No.482 of 2024 arising out of Jagarnathpur (Pundag O.P) P.S. Case No.596 of 2023 registered for the offence under Sections 307, 436 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance 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 no case has been made out against the appellant because nothing incriminating has been recovered and seized from his conscious possession. It has further been 2 submitted that the appellant has no concern with the present crime and on the basis of the confessional statement, he has been apprehended in the present case. It has further been submitted that the appellant has neither been arrested on the spot nor he is named in the F.I.R. 4. The further submission has been made on behalf of the appellant that the co-accused, namely, Pankaj Oraon, has been granted bail vide order dated 18.09.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.691 of 2024 by this Court. 5. It is submitted that the case of the present appellant is based on the similar footing as of the aforesaid co-accused person, as such, the appellant may be granted bail. 6. It has further been submitted that the appellant is in custody since 10.04.2024. It has also been contended that a charge-sheet has already been submitted in the present case. 7. Based on the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order may be interfered with. 8. While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant by submitting that in the case-diary, there is sufficient and cogent material against the appellant in the alleged crime. 9. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across the impugned order rejecting the prayer for regular bail of the appellant and the order of this Court dated 18.09.2024 granting bail to the co-accused, namely, Pankaj Oraon passed in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.691 of 2024. 3 10. It appears from the materials available on record that the co- accused person, namely, Pankaj Oraon, has been granted bail vide order dated 18.09.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.691 of 2024 by this Court. 11. This Court, on consideration of the fact that the co-accused person against whom there was similar allegation has been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.691 of 2024, is of the view that the impugned order needs to be interfered with. 12. Accordingly, the order impugned dated 13.09.2024 passed by the learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner-X, Ranchi in Misc. Cr. Application No. 2484 of 2024 in connection with S.T. No.482 of 2024 arising out of Jagarnathpur (Pundag O.P) P.S. Case No.596 of 2023, is, hereby, quashed and set aside. 13. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed. 14. 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 Addl. Judicial Commissioner-X, in connection with S.T. No.482 of 2024 arising out of Jagarnathpur (Pundag O.P) P.S. Case No.596 of 2023, 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. Further, subject to the condition that one of the bailors should be the father of the appellant and in case of his father being no more, a 4 close relative of the appellant, which is to be accompanied by affidavit justifying that such bailor is close relative of the appellant. 15. I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Sudhir (Navneet Kumar, J.)