Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 6533 (JHR)

RAKESH GANJHU ALIAS VIRAJ JEE v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Cr.A(DB)/206/2024 · 2025-01-20

Sanjay Prasad, Sujit Narayan Prasad

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 206 of 2024 ---- Rakesh Ganjhu @ Viraj Jee, aged about 32 years, son of Rameshwar Ganjhu, resident of Village Butkuiya, P.O and P.S. Kunda, District Chatra (Jharkhand) … … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent ------- CORAM :HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Pandey 2, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, A.P.P -------- Order No. 07 : Dated 20th January, 2025 1. The instant appeal, filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 23.01.2024 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 65 of 2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Latehar in connection with S.T. No. 19 of 2024 arising out of Latehar P.S. Case No. 164 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. No. 73 of 2023 (B), registered under Sections 25((1-A), 25(1-AA), 26(2) and 35 of the Arms Act and under Section 17 of the CLA Act, by which, the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been rejected. 2. It has been contended that it is a case where the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 04.07.2023 for no fault on his part and charge-sheet has been submitted and charge has also been framed long back but still the trial has not been completed. 3. It has further been contended that the basis of implication of appellant in the instant case is the secret information and - 2 - based upon that the appellant has been taken into custody in the present case. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant based upon the aforesaid submission has submitted that the impugned order requires interference by this Court. 5. While on the other hand, Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that altogether 16 criminal cases of like nature are pending against the appellant. 6. It has further been submitted that out of the 8 charge- sheeted witnesses, three witnesses have already been examined and rest five witnesses will be examined without any delay and as such the trial is at the verge of closure, hence, the prayer for regular bail is not worth to be considered. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by the learned court in the impugned order as also the material available in the case diary and the status report which this Court has called for vide order dated 28th November, 2024. 8. It appears from the material available on record that the appellant has been shown to be the member of banned extremist organization and found to be involved in hiding and burying arms and ammunition in the jungle area of Jaram. 9. It further appears from the record that during search by the police, one AK-47 rifle with 9 live cartridges, a rifle with 15 live cartridges, a rifle magazine with 20 live cartridges and a - 3 - plastic containing 43 live cartridges were recovered and seized as it was buried in the jungle, which was allegedly hidden by the Dasta members including the petitioner. 10. This Court has also called for the status report of the case vide order dated 28th November, 2024 and found therefrom that out of the 8 charge-sheeted witnesses, three witnesses have already been examined and so far examination of rest five witnesses are concerned, submission has been made by learned counsel for the respondent-State that rest witnesses will be examined without any delay so that the trial be concluded at an early date. 11. It further appears that altogether 16 criminal cases of like nature are pending against the appellant, as would be evident from the criminal antecedent report of the appellant. 12. This Court, considering the aforesaid submission advanced by learned counsel for the respondent-State and the fact that 16 criminal antecedent of like nature are pending against the appellant, is of the view that no interference is required in the impugned order. 13. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Alankar/