IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1485 of 2024 ---------- 1. Milu Sk. @ Manirul Sk. Aged about 29 years, S/o Jalaluddin Sk. 2. Kalu Sk. @ Mamlot Sk. Aged about 56 years, S/o Late Khoka Sk. @ Soka Sk. 3. Wokul Sk. @ Ovaidur Sk. @ Ovaidur Rahman aged about 47 years, S/o Late Ansur Rahman @ Anesur Rahman. 4. Rana Sk. @ Masood 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. Sanivara Bibi, w/o Mukhtar Sheikh, R/o Village- Deutalla, P.O. + P.S. Pakur (M), Distt. Pakur. … … Respondent ------- 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 State : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, APP For the Resp. No. 2 : 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. 240 of 2024 by which the prayer for regular bail of the appellants in connection with Pakur (Malpahari OP) P.S. Case no. 154 of 2024 registered under Sections 126(2), 127(2), 115(2), 303(2), 352, 109 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and under Section 27 of Arms Act and under Section ¾ of Explosive Substances 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 appellants 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 Mansur Shekh, Akhirul Shekh, Mehbood Alam, Nasibul Shekh they have been directed to be released on bail vide order dated 4th March, 2025 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 113 of 2025 and so far as it relates to Mukhtar Shekh @ Moktar Sk., he has also been directed to be released on bail vide order dated 23.10.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1080 of 2024. 5. It has been contended that it is the case based upon the omnibus and general allegation against all. Page 3 of 6 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. 7. The appellants are languishing in judicial custody since 20.08.2024 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 informant, 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 Mansur Shekh, Akhirul Shekh, Mehbood Alam, Nasibul Shekh as also in favour of Mukhtar Shekh @ Moktar Sk. has not been disputed. Page 4 of 6 12. The ground of criminal antecedent has also been taken by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the informant. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants, in response to the submission made regarding criminal antecedent, has submitted that the antecedents are related to the present case, since series of cases in between the parties have been instituted. 14. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding recorded by the learned Court in the impugned order. 15. The copy of the order granting bail in favour of Mansur Shekh, Akhirul Shekh, Mehbood Alam, Nasibul Shekh vide order dated 4th March, 2025 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 113 of 2025 as also in favour of Mukhtar Shekh @ Moktar Sk. vide order dated 23.10.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1080 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. 16. The informant in the present case is the wife of Mukhtar Shekh @ Moktar Sk. who has been directed to be released on bail vide order dated 23.10.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1080 of 2024 along with other co-accused arising out of Pakur Malpahari (OP) P.S. Case No. 153 of 2024. 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 04th March, 2025 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 113 of 2025 as also vide order dated 23rd October, 2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) 1080 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 appellants are languishing in custody since 20.08.2024 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. 240 of 2024 in connection with Pakur (Malpahari OP) P.S. Case No. 154 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 (Malpahari OP) P.S. Case No. 154 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