1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.213 of 2025 ----- Sunny Pasi @ Sunny Kumar Bharti @ Sunny Kumar, aged about 23 years, son of Santlal Pasi @ Santlal Bharti, resident of village: Kendua Khatik Patti, P.o.-Kusunda, P.S.-Kenduadih, Dist:Dhanbad. … … 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. Manish Yadav, Advocate : Mr. Lalit Yadav, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, A.P.P. ------ Order No. 02/Dated 3rd March, 2025 1. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 for setting aside the order dated 15.01.2025 passed in Anticipatory Bail Petition No.3678 of 2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dhanbad in connection with Kenduadih P.S. Case No.29 of 2023 registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3 of the Explosive Substance Act whereby and whereunder, the prayer for pre-arrest bail of the appellant has been rejected. 2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the appellant is absolutely innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant case. 2 3. It has further been contended that there is no recovery of any incriminating material from the physical or conscious possession of the appellant. 4. It has also been contended that the identically placed co-accused person, namely, Sandeep Kumar Saroj @ Sandeep Pasi in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.108 of 2024 and Chandan Khatik @ Chandan Kumar Khatik in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1435 of 2024 have been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.05.2024 and 26.11.2024 respectively. 5. While on the other hand, learned Addl. 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 the privilege of anticipatory bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, is identically placed to that of the case of the present appellant. 6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has gone across the impugned order rejecting the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant. 7. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court, is of the view that identically placed co- accused person, namely, Sandeep Kumar Saroj @ Sandeep Pasi in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.108 of 2024 and Chandan 3 Khatik @ Chandan Kumar Khatik in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1435 of 2024 have been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.05.2024 and 26.11.2024 respectively, therefore, there is no reason to take distinct view, so far as the case of the present appellant is concerned. 8. This Court, on consideration of the fact that similarly situated co-accused persons have been granted privilege of pre-arrest bail, is of the view that the impugned order needs to be interfered with. 9. Accordingly, the order dated 15.01.2025 passed in Anticipatory Bail Petition No.3678 of 2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dhanbad in connection with Kenduadih P.S. Case No.29 of 2023, is, hereby, quashed and set aside. 10. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed. 11. On consideration of the aforesaid facts, this Court is inclined to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the appellant. The appellant, above named, accordingly, is directed to surrender before the learned court below within 15 days and on his surrender, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, in connection with Kenduadih P.S. Case No.29 of 4 2023, 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. In case of non-cooperation in trial, it will be left open upon the prosecuting agency to move before the concerned court for cancellation of bail bond. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Birendra/