2025:JHHC:10488-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.350 of 2025 ----- Vinod Munda @ Chandan Ji @ Binod Munda, aged about 33 years, son of Late Mahadeo Munda, Resident of village-Buchadih, PO & PS- Keredari, District-Hazaribagh … … 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. Sunil Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, Spl.P.P. ------ Order No.2 /Dated:4th April, 2025 I.A No.3462 of 2025 1. The present interlocutory application has been filed under section 21(5) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 for condonation of delay of 17 days in preferring Cr. Appeal (DB) No.350 of 2025. 2. The learned counsel for the State has no objection to the same. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Considering the reason assigned in the interlocutory application and taking into consideration the purport of section 21(5) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, the delay of 17 days in preferring the present Criminal Appeal is hereby condoned. 5. Accordingly, I.A. No.3462 of 2025 stands allowed. Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.350 of 2025 6. The instant appeal under section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 has been directed against the order dated 17.01.2025 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-IV, Chatra in Misc. Cr. Application No. 140 of 2025 whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection 2025:JHHC:10488-DB 2 with S.T. Case No.92 of 2023 arising out of Mayurhand P.S. Case No.88 of 2020 registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 120B, 302, 379 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of Arms Act, Section 17(1) (2) of CLA Act and Section 10/13 of U.A.P Act has been rejected. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that it is a case where the appellant has falsely been implicated. 8. The submission has also been made that no case has been made out against the appellant because nothing incriminating has been recovered and seized from his conscious possession. It has further been submitted that the appellant has no concern with the present crime and merely on the suspicion, he has been apprehended in the present case. It has further been submitted that the appellant has not been arrested on the spot. 9. The further submission has been made on behalf of the appellant that the co-accused persons, namely, Santosh Yadav @ Tattu Yadav has been granted bail by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 28.06.2021 passed in B.A No.5060 of 2021, Arjun Yadav has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.01.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1479 of 2022, Niranjan Kumar Bhokta has been granted bail vide order dated 28.07.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.763 of 2023 and Sunil Ganjhu has been granted bail vide order dated 31.10.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.869 of 2023 by this Court. 10. It is submitted that the case of the present appellant is based on the similar footing as of the aforesaid co-accused person, as such, the appellant may be granted bail. 2025:JHHC:10488-DB 3 11. It has further been submitted that the appellant is in custody since 21.12.2022. It has also been contended that a charge-sheet has already been submitted in the present case. 12. Based on the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order may be interfered with. 13. While on the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant by submitting that in the case-diary, there is sufficient and cogent material against the appellant in the alleged crime. 14. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across the impugned order rejecting the prayer for regular bail of the appellant and the orders granting bail to the aforesaid co-accused persons. 15. It appears from the materials available on record that the co- accused persons, namely, Santosh Yadav @ Tattu Yadav, Arjun Yadav, Niranjan Kumar Bhokta and Sunil Ganjhu have been granted bail by this Court as referred herein above. 16. This Court, on consideration of the fact that the co-accused persons against whom there was similar allegation have been granted bail by the learned Single Judge of this Court, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court as well as by this Court, is of the view that the impugned order needs to be interfered with. 17. Accordingly, the order impugned dated 17.01.2025 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-IV, Chatra in Misc. Cr. Application No. 140 of 2025 in connection with S.T. Case No.92 of 2023 arising out of Mayurhand P.S. Case No.88 of 2020, is, hereby, quashed and set aside. 2025:JHHC:10488-DB 4 18. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed. 19. 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 Addl. Sessions Judge-IV, Chatra in connection with S.T. No.92 of 2023 arising out of Mayurhand P.S. Case No.88 of 2020, 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 trial court shall have liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law so that trial be not hindered. 20. I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Sudhir