- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 265 of 2025 ---- Sarju Turi @ Bara Turi @ Saryu Turi … … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent ------- CORAM :HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Tarun Kumar, APP -------- Order No. 03 : Dated 20th March, 2025 1. The instant appeal filed, under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 12.08.2024 passed in Misc. Cr. Application No. 1096 of 2024 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-IV, Chatra in connection with Rajpur P. S. Case No. 94 of 2019 corresponding to S.T. No. 72 of 2020, registered under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 17(1) (2) of the CLA Act; whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been rejected. 2. It has been contended on behalf of appellant that the appellant is innocent and in the FIR there is no direct role of the appellant and only on the basis of confessional statement of one Satish Chandra Bharti, he has been implicated in this case, who has been granted bail vide order dated 20.01.2020 in B.A. No. 256 of 2020. 3. Furthermore, other co-accused persons namely, Roushan Turi, Almuddin Miyan and Mukesh Yadav have - 2 - already been granted bail in B.A. No. 2872 of 2020; B.A. No. 3877 of 2020 and B.A. No. 504 of 2021 respectively vide order dated 15.06.2020; 18.08.2020 and 08.02.2021 respectively, annexed as Annexure 3 series to the memo of appeal, and the case of the present appellant stands on similar footing. 4. Therefore, submission has been made by learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order may be quashed and set aside. 5. While on the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, however, he is fair enough to admit the fact that the cases of the aforesaid co-accused persons as referred above, who have already been granted the privilege of bail, are identically placed to that of the case of the present appellant. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by the learned court in the impugned order as also as also order granting bail of co- accused persons. 7. This Court, considering the fact that co-accused persons namely, Roushan Turi, Almuddin Miyan and Mukesh Yadav have already been granted bail in B.A. No. 2872 of 2020; B.A. No. 3877 of 2020 and B.A. No. 504 of 2021 respectively vide order dated 15.06.2020; 18.08.2020 and 08.02.2021 respectively, annexed as Annexure 3 series to the memo of - 3 - appeal and furthermore, the co-accused person, on whose confession the name of the appellant has come, has also been granted bail vide order dated 20.01.2020 in B.A. No. 256 of 2020, therefore, there is no reason to take distinct view, so far as the case of the present appellant is concerned. 8. Considering the aforesaid fact, this Court is of the view that the impugned order needs to be interfered with. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 12.08.2024 passed in Misc. Cr. Application No. 1096 of 2024 by the by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-IV, Chatra in connection with Rajpur P. S. Case No. 94 of 2019 corresponding to S.T. No. 72 of 2020, is hereby quashed and set aside. 10. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed. 11. In consequence thereof, the appellant, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-IV, Chatra in connection with Rajpur P. S. Case No. 94 of 2019 corresponding to S.T. No. 72 of 2020, 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 court shall have liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law so that trial be not hindered and further that one of the - 4 - bailors should be close relative of the appellant, which is to be accompanied by affidavit justifying that such bailor is close relative of the appellant. 12. 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. 13. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Alankar/