2025:JHHC:10505-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 123 of 2025 --------- Sunil Kherwar @ Rajkumar Kherwar, aged about 30 years, Son Shri Laldev Kherwar @ Laldeo Kherwar, resident of Village-Jhudni, P.O.-Dundry & P.S. Jenha, District-Lohardaga (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. Sumit Prakash, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Ms. Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P. ----------- 03/Dated: 4th April, 2025 1. The instant criminal appeal has been filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Lohardaga in Misc. Cr. Application No. 509 of 2024, whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail in connection with Serengdag P.S. Case No.07 of 2023 registered under Sections 353, 414, 120B of Indian Penal Code and 25(1AA)/ 25(1-(B)a, 26(ii)/27/35 of Arms Act and under Section 17 of C.L.A. Act, has been rejected. 2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that there is no recovery from the physical or conscious possession of the present appellant save and except on the disclosure of name of other co-accused persons, the sophisticated weapon (9 mm Carbine) has been recovered from the house of the co-accused. It has been submitted that the appellant is in custody since 06.07.2023 and as such, the same has not been considered, therefore, the present appeal. 2025:JHHC:10505-DB 2 3. Learned counsel based upon the aforesaid ground has submitted that the impugned order may be interfered with. 4. While on the other hand, Ms. Kumari Rashmi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Jharkhand vehemently opposed the prayer for regular bail of the appellant and has submitted that the nature of allegation against the present appellant is very serious as he is a member of banned organization namely Bhakpa Maowadi Organization (B.M.O.). 5. It has been submitted that on the confession and disclosure of the name of other co-accused persons, recovery of the sophisticated weapon i.e. 9 mm Carbine has been has been made. The trial is going on and out of 09 charge- sheeted witnesses, 02 witnesses have been examined. 6. She has further submitted that all sincere endeavours will be taken to conclude the trial and, at this juncture, if the appellant will be released on bail, there is every likelihood of tampering with the evidence since he is a member of a banned organization in the State of Jharkhand and is having two criminal antecedents excluding the present one. 7. We have heard the parties and gone through the findings recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned order as also the case diary. 8. We have found from the findings recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned order that the appellant has been shown to be a member of a banned organization, namely, Bhakpa Maowadi Organization (B.M.O.). Although, there is no recovery from his possession but on his pointing out and disclosure of the names of the other co-accused persons, sophisticated weapon i.e. 9 mm Carbine and four live cartridges have been recovered. The 2025:JHHC:10505-DB 3 trial is in progress and out of 09 charge-sheeted witnesses, 02 witnesses have been examined as has been submitted on behalf of the appellant. 9. This Court, considering the fact that learned trial court has made an observation that there is likelihood of his fleeing away or manipulating of prosecution witnesses and tampering with the prosecution evidences, cannot consider it to be an erroneous finding with a view that the appellant is an active member of a banned organization, namely, Bhakpa Maowadi Organization (B.M.O) and is having two criminal antecedents excluding the present one. 10. This Court, considering the aforesaid fact, is the view that if the prayer for regular bail has been rejected by the learned court, which according to our considered view, cannot be said to suffer from any error. 11. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and stands dismissed. 12. However, since the trial is at progress, as such, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Amar/-