2025:JHHC:11110-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.99 of 2025 ----- 1. Nakul Turi @ Mukul Turi, aged about 43 years, son of Ganesh Turi. 2. Samola @ Samali aged about 39 years, wife of Nakul Turi, Both resident of Puruliadanga, P.O. & P.S. Barharwa, Both present address Village-Babupur, P.O. & P.S. Tinpahar, District-Sahibganj. 3. Samra Turi @ Simra Turi @ Somra Turi, aged about 38 years, son of Gakhul Turi @ Gokul Turi, Resident of Village-Sakdgor Bhanga, P.O. & P.S. Tinpahar, District- Sahibganj. … … Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent ------- CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ------- For the Appellants : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Abhinav Raj, Advocate : Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Birat Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Shweta Singh, A.P.P. ------ Order No. 05/Dated 9th April, 2025 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Rajmahal in M.C.A. No.31 of 2024 whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellants in connection with S.T. Case No.313 of 2024 arising out of Tinpahar P.S. Case No.68 of 2023, registered for the offence under Sections 370 & 363/34 of the Indian Penal Code, has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that from the prosecution version it would be evident that there is no ingredient of either Section 370 or Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code. 2025:JHHC:11110-DB 2 3. It has further been submitted that the appellants are having no criminal antecedents and the Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are in custody since 16.08.2024 and Appellant No.3 is in custody since 28.09.2024. 4. It has further been submitted that the charge has already been framed in this case 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that it is a fit case to interfere with the impugned order. 6. While on the other hand, Mrs. Shweta Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State, has vehemently opposed the prayer to show interference with the impugned order. 7. It has been contended that the husband of the informant is still traceless and the police is taking effort to caught hold of Mannan Sheikh who is resident of Murshidabad in the State of West Bengal. 8. Learned State counsel, however, has admitted the fact that the charge has already been framed in this case. 9. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties, gone through the finding recorded by the learned court in the impugned order as also the case diary. 10. This Court, taking into consideration the period of custody as also the fact that the charge has already been framed, is of the view that the impugned order needs interference. 2025:JHHC:11110-DB 3 11. Accordingly, order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Rajmahal in M.C.A. No.31 of 2024, is hereby quashed and set aside. 12. In consequence thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed. 13. Accordingly, the appellants, above named, are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Rajmahal in connection with S.T. Case No.313 of 2024 arising out of Tinpahar P.S. Case No.68 of 2023, subject to the condition that the appellants shall appear before the court concerned on each and every date and shall not absent themselves on the date fixed without any cogent cause. In failure, the learned trial court shall have liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law so that trial be not hindered. 14. The instant criminal appeal stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Birendra/