2025:JHHC:11303-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.135 of 2025 ----- Rohit Oraon @ Rohit Toppo, aged about 30 years, S/o Kalstu Oraon, R/o Village-Harra Patra Toli, PO & PS-Chainpur, District-Gumla … … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent ------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ------- For the Appellant : Mrs. Sweety Topno, Advocate Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Lily Sahay, A.P.P. ------ Order No.09 /Dated:11th April, 2025 1. In compliance of the order dated 07.04.2025 explanation as sought for by this Court has been received which is kept on the record. 2. We after going through the statement as referred in paragraph no.2 thereof when posed a question to the learned counsel appearing for the State, Mrs. Lily Sahay, the learned APP she has submitted that such submission has been made on misconception and she owes accountability of the same which is based upon the information given by her advocate clerk. 3. Considering the said explanation the same is being accepted. 4. The reference has been made at paragraph no.5 of the explanation of wrong reference of the date of the filing which has been referred in the presentation form as 07.07.2025 in place of 07.04.2025. 5. The learned APP has sought for leave of this Court to make necessary correction in the same. 6. Let necessary correction be done in the presentation form during course of the day. 7. In view of the aforesaid, the leave as sought for by the learned State counsel to accept the filing of affidavit in objection is allowed. 2025:JHHC:11303-DB 2 8. Let the same be kept on record. 9. Since the counter affidavit is on record, as such, the matter is being heard on merit. 10. The instant appeal under section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 has been directed against the order dated 05.10.2024 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I-cum- Spl. Judge, Gumla in B.P No.675 of 2024 in connection with S.T. (Spt.) No.87 of 2017 arising out of Chainpur PS Case No.27 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 353, 427/197 of the IPC, under Section 27 of the Arms Act, under Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act and under Section 17 of the CLA Act has been rejected. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the present appellant is innocent and has committed no offence. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that other co-accused persons have been acquitted by the learned trial Court. So far as the issue on merit is concerned, no incriminating material has been recovered said to be from the possession of the present appellant as also no causality, as per the prosecution version is there. Therefore, the same ought to have been taken into consideration by the learned trial Court while considering the prayer for regular bail of the appellant. 13. It has been contended that the appellant is in judicial custody since 19.09.2024. 14. Based on the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the aforesaid fact has not been considered by the learned trial Court while rejecting the regular bail of the present appellant and, as such, the impugned order may be interfered with. 2025:JHHC:11303-DB 3 15. While on the other hand, learned APP has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant by submitting that in the case-diary, there is sufficient and cogent material against the appellant in the alleged crime. 16. It has been contended by referring the conduct of the present appellant to the effect that the case is of the year 2013 and the charge sheet has been submitted some time in the year 2016 and since then the appellant remained absconder. The learned trial Court has to initiate the trial in absence of the present appellant by splitting up the trial while the trial of the other co-accused persons is proceeded. The appellant after lapse of 8 years has arrested on 19.09.2024. 17. The learned State counsel in the backdrop of the aforesaid has submitted that taking into consideration of the conduct of the present appellant, the prayer for regular bail of the present appellant has rightly been rejected by the learned trial Court and, as such, it cannot be said that while considering the prayer for regular bail of the appellant the decision which has been taken by the learned trial Court suffers from an error. 18. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding/reasoning recorded by the learned trial Court in the impugned order as also the First Information Report, case diary and affidavit in objection. 19. It is evident from the material fact that the allegation against the appellant is serious in nature since it has been alleged that he being the member of a banned organization, has alleged to be involved in the destruction of the building of Rajkiya Buniadi Vidyalaya, Kurumgarh which has been destroyed by explosion of bomb by the extremist. 2025:JHHC:11303-DB 4 20. The appellant was implicated in the present case along with the others. The charge sheet was submitted on 03.08.2016. The appellant remained absconder for about 8 years and finally he was taken into custody on 19.09.2024, but in the meanwhile, the learned trial Court has to split up the trial of the present appellant and even thereafter, the appellant has not appeared, hence, the trial is proceeded in his absence. 21. It has been informed by the learned counsel appearing for the State that the trial so far it relates to the present appellant is concerned, is going on and the case is at the stage of evidence and, as such, taking into consideration of the conduct of the present appellant of being absconded for about 8 years, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to interfere with the impugned order. 22. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed. 23. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will not prejudice the case on merit, since, the trial is pending. 24. I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Sudhir