1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.207 of 2025 ------ Mukesh Rana @ Mukesh Kumar Rana S/o Jugeshwar Rana, R/o Village Serheta, P.O. & PS Itkhori, District Chatra .... .... …. 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. Ashok Kr. Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P. ------ Order No.05 / Dated : 27.03.2025 1. The instant appeal, filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 08.01.2025 passed in Misc. Cr. Application No. 63 of 2025 by the learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in connection with S.T. No. 527 of 2024 arising out of Keredari P. S. Case No. 48 of 2022, registered under Sections 414, 385/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 25(1-A), 25(1-B) a, 26, 35 of Arms Act and Sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act, pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, wherein the prayer for regular bail of the appellant, has been rejected. 2. It has been contended on behalf of appellant that the appellant is absolutely innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant case. 3. It has further been contended that the appellant has been made accused only on the basis of confessional statement made by the co- accused persons. It has further been contended that the appellant has not been arrested on the spot and no recovery has been made from his conscious possession. 4. It has also been contended that the identically placed co-accused persons, namely, Bhagirath Mahto, Ram Kumar Mahto, Harendra Ganjhu @ Ramdas Ganjhu @ Suresh Ganjhu @ Jugeshwar Ganjhu @ Netaji and Baleshwar Ram have been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 21.11.2022, 19.01.2023, 20.12.2022 and 2 29.11.2022 passed in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) Nos. 928 of 2022, 1221 of 2022, 1327 of 2022 and 1053 of 2022 respectively. 5. While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. However, he is fair enough to admit the fact that the case of the aforesaid co-accused persons as referred above, who have already been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, are identically placed to that of the case of the present appellant. 6. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that identically placed co-accused persons namely, Bhagirath Mahto, Ram Kumar Mahto, Harendra Ganjhu @ Ramdas Ganjhu @ Suresh Ganjhu @ Jugeshwar Ganjhu @ Netaji and Baleshwar Ram, have been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 21.11.2022, 19.01.2023, 20.12.2022 and 29.11.2022 passed in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) Nos. 928 of 2022, 1221 of 2022, 1327 of 2022 and 1053 of 2022 respectively, therefore, there is no reason to take distinct view, so far as the case of the present appellant is concerned. 7. Considering the aforesaid fact, this Court is of the view that the impugned order needs to be interfered with. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 08.01.2025 passed in Misc. Cr. Application No. 63 of 2025 by the learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, is hereby, quashed and set aside. 9. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed. 10. 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 Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in connection with S.T. No. 527 of 2024 arising out of Keredari P. S. Case No. 48 of 2022, 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 relatives of the appellant, which is to be accompanied by affidavit justifying that such bailor is close relatives of the appellant. 3 11. 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. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT/Anit