IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1505 of 2024 ---------- 1. Tinku Sk. @ Mehrul Sk. Aged 24 years, S/o Jalaluddin Sk. 2. Kalu Sk. @ Mamlot Sk. Aged about 56 years, S/o Late Khoka Sk. @ Soka Sk. 3. Sentu Sk. aged about 66 years, S/o Late Khoka Sk. @ Soka Sk. 4. Milu Sk. @ Manirul Sk. @ Manirul Sk. @ Monirul Shekh, aged about 29 years, S/o Jalaluddin Sk. 5. Wokul Sk. @ Ovaidur Rahman aged about 47 years, S/o Late Ansur Rahman @ Anesur Rahman. 6. Rana Sk. @ Masood Rana @ Masud Rana, aged about 34 years, S/o Late Ansur Rahman @ Anisur Rahman. All are R/o Village- Nabinagar, P.O. – Nabinagar, P.S.- Pakur Malpahari (OP), District- Pakur Jharkhand … … Appellants Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Manirul Islam Shekh S/o Rakibul Shekh, R/o Village Jhhikarhati, P.O. Jhikarhati, P.S. Pakur (M), Dist- Pakur. … … Respondents ------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------- For the Appellants : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Sudhir Kr. Srivastava, Advocate : Ms. Savita Kumari, Advocate : Mr. Ashutosh Kr. Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Abhinav Raj, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. V.S. Sahay, APP For the Informant : Mr. Yasir Arafat, Advocate ---------------------------- ORAL ORDER 07/Dated: 26th March, 2025 1. The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 04.10.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pakur in Bail Petition No. 215 of 2024 and Bail Petition No. 239 of 2024 by which the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with Pakur (Muffasil) P.S. Case no. 163 of 2024 registered under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 127(2), 115(2), 117(2), 118(2) and Section 109 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and under Section 27 of Arms Act and under Section 3 of Explosive Substance Act has been rejected. 2. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that it is a case where the appellants have been implicated in the case and counter-case. 3. The aforesaid fact is admitted from the case diary itself wherein the fight between the appellant and the informant side had occurred and in consequence thereof, the cases and the counter cases have been filed. 4. It has further been contended that in the counter case, which has been instituted on behalf of the appellants of the present appeal against Menarul Shekh, Nasibul Shekh, Mansur Shekh, Akhirul Shekh and Mehboob Alam @ Mehoob Alam, they have been directed to be released vide order dated 20th March, 2025 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1605 of 2024. 5. It has been contended that it is the case based upon the omnibus and general allegation against all. 6. It has further been contended that there is no injury, however, the allegation is there of throwing bomb due to which the bomb exploded but having no injury found therein. Page 3 of 6 7. The appellant no. 1 and other appellants are languishing in judicial custody since 25.07.2024 and 20.08.2024 respectively and the charge-sheet has already been submitted. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the impugned order may be interfered with so that the appellants may be released from judicial custody. 9. While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr. Yasir Arafat, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, who has appeared in pursuance to the notice issued by this Court vide order dated 12.02.2025 have jointly opposed the prayer for bail. 10. It has been contended that the nature of the allegation against the appellants is serious and remains of the explosive substances has been recovered from the place of occurrence. But the learned counsel for both the parties, i.e., for the State and for the informant are not in a position to dispute that it is a case and counter-case in between two groups. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the State has also submitted that the injury report is not available showing the nature of injury, if any. The fact about the grant of bail in favour of Menarul Shekh, Nasibul Shekh, Mansur Shekh, Akhirul Shekh and Mehboob Alam @ Mehoob Alam has not been disputed. 12. The ground of criminal antecedent has also been taken by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the informant. Page 4 of 6 13. It has been submitted by referring to the FIR that firing from the bullet has been shown. 14. Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants, in response to the submission made regarding firing of the bullet, has submitted that there is no injury report. 15. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding recorded by the learned Court in the impugned order. 16. The copy of the order granting bail in favour of Menarul Shekh, Nasibul Shekh, Mansur Shekh, Akhirul Shekh and Mehboob Alam @ Mehoob Alam, vide order dated 20th March, 2025 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1605 of 2024 have been produced by the learned counsel for the appellants of the present case and the copy of the same has been supplied to the learned counsel appearing for the State and informant. 17. We have gone through the case diary and found therefrom that it is a case and counter-case in between two groups, one of the groups is being represented by learned counsel appearing for the informant who have been allowed to be released on bail from judicial custody vide order dated 20th March, 2025 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1605 of 2024. 18. We have also tried to ascertain by going through the case diary regarding the gravity of injury, if any, but as has been submitted by the learned State counsel, no injury report is there in the case diary. 19. Hence, in absence of injury report, it cannot be ascertained regarding the nature of injury said to be grievous or simple. The allegation against the present appellant is not specific rather it is vague and general. 20. Further considering that the appellant no. 1 and other appellants are languishing in judicial custody since 25.07.2024 and 20.08.2024 respectively and the charge-sheet has already been submitted and so far as the criminal antecedents are concerned, the fact about the case and counter-case has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the State and it has also not been disputed that the antecedents pertain to the cases and counter cases. 21. Considering the aforesaid fact, this Court is of the view that the order impugned needs to be interfered with. 22. Accordingly, the order dated 04.10.2024 passed in Bail Petition No. 215 of 2024 and Bail Petition No. 239 of 2024 in connection with Pakur (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 163 of 2024 is hereby quashed and set aside. 23. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed. 24. In consequence thereof, the appellants, above named, are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the S.D.J.M. Pakur in connection with Pakur (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 163 of 2024 subject to the condition that the appellants will cooperate in the trial and shall appear on each and every date before the learned trial court, failing which, the learned trial court is at liberty to take appropriate course in accordance with law and; further subject to the condition that one of the bailors should be the father of the appellants and in case of his father being no more, a close relative of the appellants, which is to be accompanied by affidavit justifying that such bailor is close relative of the appellants. 25. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Samarth