1 Cr. Appeal (DB) No.73 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No.73 of 2025 Nilambar Gope, aged about 32 years, s/o Sukra Gope, resident of village-Pesam, P.O. + P.S. – Raniya, District- Khunti ..... 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. Vishal Kr. Rai, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P. ----- Order No.3: 27th March 2025 This instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigating Agency Act, 2008 directed against the order dated 22.11.2024 passed by learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-II, Khunti, in MCA No.371 of 2024, corresponding to S.T. No.197 of 2023, registered under Sections 25(1-AA), 25(1- A), 25(6), 26, 35 of Arms Act and under Section 17 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, by which the prayer for regular bail has been rejected. 2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that there is no recovery of any incriminating material from the conscious or physical possession, however, the name of the appellant has come on the basis of the confessional statement of the co- accused person Sagen Aind and based upon that, the name of the appellant has been referred in the first information report. 3. It has further been contended that the case of the present appellant is identical to that of the co-accused persons namely Bishram Kongari @ Mota, Prakash Kumar Sahu and one Gautam Gope @ Jalwa, whose names have also been referred by the co-accused namely Sagen Aind. 4. It has further been contended that the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 23.06.2023. Only the six charge-sheet witnesses are to be examined, but as yet, none of the witnesses have been examined and as such, taking into consideration the delay in trial as also the principal of parity, the present appeal may be allowed. 5. While on the other hand, Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has submitted that the prayer for regular bail of this appellant has been rejected on earlier occasion by this Court vide order dated 04.04.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.2132 of 2023 and it has further been contended that against the appellant, altogether seven criminal antecedents are there. 2 Cr. Appeal (DB) No.73 of 2025 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, in response has submitted, so far as the grounds of criminal antecedents are concerned, the other co-accused namely Bishram Kongari @ Mota, against whom, eight criminal antecedents have been shown to be there, has been granted bail vide order dated 29th April 2024 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.2177 of 2023 as appended in Annexure-3 series. 7. It has further been contended that Gautam Gope @ Jalwa, who has also been directed to be released on bail in the second round, against whom also six criminal antecedents have been shown, as it would be evident from the order dated 8th January 2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1319 of 2023 appended therein. 8. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant bases upon the aforesaid grounds has submitted that the impugned order needs to be interfered with. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone through the reason given by the learned Court in the impugned order rejecting the prayer for regular bail. 10. We have considered both the issues; i.e. the issue of parity as has been agitated by the learned counsel for the appellant along with the delay in trial. We have also considered the issue of criminal antecedents as has been raised on behalf of learned State counsel. 11. The prayer for bail of this appellant was earlier been rejected vide order dated 04.04.2024 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.2132 of 2023, thereafter the present application has been filed. 12. So far as the issue of parity is concerned, we have found from the order passed by this Court in case of appellants Bishram Kongari @ Mota, Prakash Kumar Sahu and Gautam Gope @ Jalwa in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.2177 of 2023, Cr. Appeal (DB) No.2008 of 2023 and Cr. Appeal (DB) No.960 of 2024 respectively, that name of these accused persons have been referred to in the confessional statement of the co-accused Sagen Aind. 13. There is no recovery from the possession of the appellant, save and accept the disclosure of the name of the appellant based upon the accused person, who had been apprehended from the spot. The issue of parity therefore according to our considered view is applicable herein. 14. We have also considered that Gautam Gope @ Jalwa has been directed to be released on bail, whose application on earlier occasion had been rejected vide order dated 8th January 2024 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1319 of 2023. The said Gautam Gope @ Jalwa has been directed to be released on bail on the ground that there is no progress in the trial. 3 Cr. Appeal (DB) No.73 of 2025 15. The issue of criminal antecedents has also taken into consideration. It would be evident from the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench in the order dated 29th April 2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.2177 of 2023, wherein against the said accused namely Bishram Kongari @ Mota, eight criminal antecedents have been shown to be there. The issue of criminal antecedents has also taken into consideration in the case Gautam Gope @ Jalwa, against whom six criminal antecedents have been shown to be there. 16. In the present case, six witnesses are to be examined as per the status report called for, but none of the witnesses have been examined. 17. This Court has considered the identically placed co-accused, who have been directed to be released on bail coupled with the fact that there is no progress in the trial and as such it is a fit case, where the impugned order needs to be interfered with. 18. In the result, the impugned order dated 22.11.2024 passed by learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-II, Khunti, in MCA No.371 of 2024, corresponding to S.T. No.197 of 2023 is hereby quashed and set-aside. 19. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed. 20. In consequence, thereof, the appellant, named above, 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 learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-II, Khunti, in connection with S.T. No.197 of 2023, arising out of Jariyagarh P.S. Case No.22 of 2023, subject to the condition that the appellant 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. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) R.Kumar / Satyendra