1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 243 of 2025 With I.A. No. 1777 of 2025 --------- Sushant Singhdeo @ Tuna Singh, aged about 44 years, son of Late Jitendar Kumar Singh Deo, resident of Vill-Jojo Kurma, P.O. & P.S. Amda, District-Seraikella-Kharsawan. … … 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. Pran Pranay, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, APP ----------- 05/Dated: 20th March, 2025 I.A. No. 1777 of 2025: 1. Learned counsel for the appellant has sought for leave of this Court to make necessary correction in the provision of law in which the instant interlocutory application has been filed since the same has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act instead of Section 21(5) of the NIA Act. 2. Leave as sought for is allowed. 3. Let the necessary correction be made in course of the day. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the delay of 23 days in filing the appeal be condoned. 5. There is no objection on behalf of the respondent-State in condoning the delay occurred in filing the appeal. 6. This Court, considering the reason assigned in the instant interlocutory application, is of the view that the delay in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned, accordingly, the delay of 23 days is hereby, condoned. 7. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application stands allowed, as such, disposed of. Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 243 of 2025: 8. The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 09.12.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Seraikella in 2 MCRA No. 1105 of 2024 (S.T. Case No. 214 of 2024), by which the prayer for grant of regular bail of the appellant in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No.111 of 2024(S) registered under Sections 307, 109, 120B, 148, 201/34 of IPC, has been rejected. 9. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case merely on suspicion. 10. It has been contended that the appellant is not named in the FIR and the chargesheet has already been submitted. 11. It has also been contended on behalf of the appellant that the appellant was neither present at the place of occurrence nor he was having any knowledge about the alleged incident. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred the order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1273 of 2024 with Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1142 of 2024 whereby the identically placed co-accused persons, namely, Mantosh Mahato; Motilal Bishey @ Moti Lal Bisui and Vishwanath Das @ Bishwanath Das have been granted bail. 13. While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer to interfere with the impugned order but he has not disputed the fact regarding bail having been granted in favour of the identically placed co-accused persons. 14. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and in order to consider the culpability said to be committed by the present appellant whether it is identical to that of the other co-accused persons, has gone through the material available in the First Information Report as also the impugned order wherefrom it is evident that the culpability of the present appellant is identical to that of the co-accused persons who have already been directed to be released on bail. 15. This Court considering the said fact that the identically placed co- accused person, namely, Mantosh Mahato has been directed to be released on bail vide order dated 21.01.2025 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1273 of 2024 as also Motilal Bishey @ Moti Lal Bisui and Vishwanath Das @ Bishwanath Das have also been directed to 3 be released on bail vide order dated 21.01.2025 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1142 of 2024 as also considering that the appellant is in custody since 21.08.2024 and chargesheet has been submitted, this Court is of the view that the impugned order needs to be interfered with. 16. Accordingly, the order dated 09.12.2024 passed in MCRA No. 1105 of 2024 (S.T. Case No. 214 of 2024), 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 Sessions Judge, Seraikella-Kharsawan in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No. 111 of 2024(S) 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 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. 19. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Saurabh/-