BACHCHA ALIAS KATIYA ALIAS MOOSA HAPDHGADHA ALIAS NAAMJAN ALIAS ISHU v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
Cr.A(DB)/25/2025 · 2025-03-20
Gautam Kumar Choudhary, Sujit Narayan Prasad
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 30950 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 30950 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 25 of 2025 ---- Bachcha @ Katiya @ Moosa Hapdhgadha @ Naamjan @ Ishu
… … 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. Prabhat Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Shweta Singh, APP --------
Order No. 06 : 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 20.09.2024 passed in MCA No.296 of 2024 corresponding to S.T. Case No. 11 of 2024 by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-III, Khunti in connection with Arki P. S. Case No. 01 of 2021, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 333, 307, 307, 353 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 25(1-AA), 25(1-B)a, 25(6), 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act and 17 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 petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case and name of the appellant has come on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused; and nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner
- 2 -
is in judicial custody since 23.09.2023 and in the case at hand charges have already been framed. 3. Furthermore, the co-accused namely Tuti Kandir has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 19.01.2022 in B.A. No. 15063 of 2021 and case of the 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, does not dispute that co-accused has been granted bail by this Court. 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 the order by which the co-accused has been granted bail. 7. This Court considering the fact that co-accused, namely Tuti Kandir has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 19.01.2022 in B.A. No. 15063 of 2021 and culpability of the appellant stands on similar footing, which has not been disputed by the learned APP, therefore, there is no reason to take distinct view, so far as the case of the present appellant is concerned. - 3 -
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 20.09.2024 passed in MCA No.296 of 2029 corresponding to S.T. Case No. 11 of 2024 by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-III, Khunti in connection with Arki P. S. Case No. 01 of 2021, 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 District & Additional Sessions Judge-III, Khunti in connection with Arki P. S. Case No. 01 of 2021, 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.
- 4 -
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/