2025:JHHC:32345-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (DB) No.762 of 2025 ----- Menarul Shekh, aged about 26 years, S/o Baidul Shekh, resident of village – Jhikarhati, P.O.-Jhikarhati, P.S.-Pakur (M), District-Pakur (Jharkhand) … … 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 : Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Ms. Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P. ------ Order No. 04/Dated 16th October, 2025 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dated 16.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Pakur in M.C.A. No.122 of 2025 whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with S.T. Case No.190 of 2024 arising out of Pakur (Malpahari OP) P.S. Case No.153 of 2024, registered for the offence under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 109 and 352 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3 / 4 of the Explosive Substance Act, has been rejected. 2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case where the appellant has falsely been implicated. 2025:JHHC:32345-DB 2 3. It has been submitted that even accepting the prosecution version to be true then also the nature of crime said to be committed by the appellant is not serious, since, there is no fire arm injury found to be there upon anyone. 4. It has further been submitted that the allegation against the appellant is omnibus. 5. The further contention has been raised that some of the co-accused persons have already been directed to be enlarged on bail vide order dated 23.10.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1080 of 2024 (Mukhtar Shekh @ Moktar Sk) and order dated 04.03.2025 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.113 of 2025 (Mansur Shekh, Akhirul Shekh, Mehbood Alam and Nasibul Shekh) as appended as Annexure-2 and 3 to the memo of appeal. 6. Learned counsel has further submitted that the appellant has already remained in custody for over one year two months and even though the charge was framed on 05.01.2024, but none of the witnesses has been examined. 7. Learned counsel based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that it is a fit case where the impugned order needs to be interfered with. 8. On the other hand, Ms. Kumari Rashmi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, has submitted that the present appeal is second in serious since on the earlier occasion the prayer so made for grant of 2025:JHHC:32345-DB 3 regular bail has been withdrawn, as would be evident from the order dated 04.03.2025 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1553 of 2024, as appended as Annexure-4 to the memo of appeal. 9. It has further been submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is of firing from pistol and, as such, the nature of allegation is serious. So far as the other accused persons who have been granted bail, there is no allegation of firing from pistol against them. 10. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that therefore it is not a fit case where the impugned order needs interference. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding recorded by the learned court in the impugned order as also the case diary which we have called for vide order dated 14.08.2025. 12. The allegation against the appellant as per the F.I.R. is that he has said to fire from pistol. No pistol has been shown to be seized from the possession of this appellant. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also admits the said fact after going through the case diary. 13. It is further evident that there is no injury said to be grave in nature rather, the injury has been shown to be simple that too has been caused by explosion of the bomb. 2025:JHHC:32345-DB 4 There is no allegation of recovery or hurling bomb so far as the present appellant is concerned. 14. The appellant has already remained in custody for over one year and two months. Charge has been framed on 05.01.2024 but as yet no witness has been examined. 15. This Court, taking into consideration the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as also the fact that none of the witnesses has yet been examined even after lapse of more than one and a half year, hence, is of the view that the impugned order needs interference. 16. Hence, the impugned order dated 16.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Pakur in M.C.A. No.122 of 2025, is hereby quashed and set aside. 17. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed. 18. In consequence thereof, the appellant, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Pakur in connection with Pakur (Malpahari OP) P.S. Case No.153 of 2024, 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 and; further subject to the condition that one of the bailors 2025:JHHC:32345-DB 5 should be a close relative of the appellant, which is to be accompanied by affidavit justifying that such bailor is close relative of the appellant. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) 16th October, 2025 Birendra/