1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.75 of 2025 ------ 1. Mahendra Chouhan @ Mahendra Kr. Chouhan, S/o Rameshwar Beldar, R/o Pure Barora, P.O. Nawagarh (Dumra), P.S. Baroa, District Dhanbad. 2. Chandan Kumar @ Chandan Chouhan, S/o Sohrai Nonia @ Sohrai Chouhan, R/o New Quarter, P.S. Baroa, P.O. Nawagarh (Dumra), District Dhanbad. .... .... …. Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Appellants : Mr. Rishi Pallava, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, A.P.P. ------ Order No.03 / Dated : 27.03.2025 1. The instant appeal, filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 18.12.2024 passed in B.P. No. 924 of 2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Dhanbad in connection with Barora P. S. Case No. 63 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. No. 630 of 2024, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 386, 307 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 25(1-B) (a), 27(1), 35 of Arms Act and Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act , pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad, wherein the prayer for regular bail of the appellants, has been rejected. 2. It has been contended on behalf of appellants that the appellants are absolutely innocent and have falsely been implicated in the instant case. 3. It has further been contended that the appellants have been made accused only on the basis of suspicion and no recovery of any incriminating materials was made from their conscious possession. 4. It has also been contended that the identically placed co-accused persons, namely, Shankar Beldar @ Shankar Baldar, Birendra Chouhan @ Gusta @ Virendra Chouhan @ Birendra Kumar Chouhan, Binay Chouhan and Suraj Chouhan have been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 06.05.2024, 18.10.2024 and 29.10.2024 2 passed in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) Nos. 289 of 2024, 1295 of 2024 and 1328 of 2024 respectively. 5. While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. However, he is fair enough to admit the fact that the case of the aforesaid co-accused persons as referred above, who have already been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, are identically placed to that of the case of the present appellants. 6. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that identically placed co-accused persons namely, Shankar Beldar @ Shankar Baldar, Birendra Chouhan @ Gusta @ Virendra Chouhan @ Birendra Kumar Chouhan, Binay Chouhan and Suraj Chouhan have been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 06.05.2024, 18.10.2024 and 29.10.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) Nos. 289 of 2024, 1295 of 2024 and 1328 of 2024 respectively, therefore, there is no reason to take distinct view, so far as the case of the present appellants is concerned. 7. Considering the aforesaid fact, this Court is of the view that the impugned order needs to be interfered with. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 18.12.2024 passed in B.P. No. 924 of 2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Dhanbad, is hereby, quashed and set aside. 9. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed. 10. In consequence thereof, the appellants, above named, are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with Barora P. S. Case No. 63 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. No. 630 of 2024, subject to the conditions that the appellants shall co-operate in the trial and shall not absent themselves 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 hindered and further that one of the bailors should be close relatives of the appellants, 3 which is to be accompanied by affidavit justifying that such bailor is close relatives of the appellants. 11. 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. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) AKT/Anit (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)