1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1591 of 2024 ------ Bhairo Ganjhu @ Bhasakar Jee @ Virappan Jee, aged about-24 years, S/o-Jethu Ganjhu @ Jaitu Ganjhu, R/o-Village-Rajguru, P.O and P.S-Balumath, Dist-Latehar, Jharkhand. …. …. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Soumitra Baroi, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P. ------ 02/Dated: 09.01.2025 1. The instant appeal preferred under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, is directed against the order dated 23.11.2024 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No.668 of 2024, in connection with S.T. Case No.59 of 2023, arising out of Herhanj P.S. Case No.17 of 2021, corresponding to G.R. Case No.511/2021(B) registered for the offence under Sections 25(1-A), 25(1-B)(a), 26, 35 of the Arms Act, Sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act and Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been rejected. 2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the appellant is absolutely innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant case. 3. It has further been contended that nothing has been recovered from the physical or conscious possession of the appellant and he is languishing in judicial custody since 14.11.2022. 2 4. It has also been contended that the identically placed co-accused persons, namely, Srikant Ganjhu @ Sakendra Ganjhu @ Srikant Jee @ Srikant Paswan, Dashrath Ganjhu @ Prem Sagar Jee @ Prem Kumar Ganjhu @ Prem Kumar @ Prem Ganjhu and Babulal Ganjhu @ Marandijee have already been directed to be released on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 21.11.2022, 09.01.2023 and 29.04.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.1097 of 2022, 1585 of 2022 and 1840 of 2023 respectively. 5. While on the other hand, learned Spl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. However, she is fair enough to admit the fact that the cases of the aforesaid co-accused persons as referred above, who have already been directed to be released on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court, are identically placed to that of the case of the present appellant. 6. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court, is of the view that identically placed co-accused persons, namely, Srikant Ganjhu @ Sakendra Ganjhu @ Srikant Jee @ Srikant Paswan, Dashrath Ganjhu @ Prem Sagar Jee @ Prem Kumar Ganjhu @ Prem Kumar @ Prem Ganjhu and Babulal Ganjhu @ Marandijee have already been directed to be released on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 21.11.2022, 09.01.2023 and 29.04.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.1097 of 2022, 1585 of 2022 and 1840 of 2023 respectively, therefore, there is no reason to take distinct view, so far as the case of the present appellant is concerned. 7. Moreover, the appellant is languishing in custody since 3 14.11.2022. 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 23.11.2024 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No.668 of 2024 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Latehar, 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-I, Latehar, in connection with S.T. Case No.59 of 2023, arising out of Herhanj P.S. Case No.17 of 2021, corresponding to G.R. Case No.511/2021(B), 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 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. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Navneet Kumar, J.) Rohit/-