Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ.
Surendra Ganjhu @ Sushant Bhokta, S/o. Mangal Ganjhu - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.1467 of 2023
Decided On : 06-03-2024
(A) National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 - Section 21(4) - UAP Act, 1967 - Sections 45 - Bail application - The appellant's bail was denied by the Sessions Judge due to omnibus allegations against multiple accused - The court found no specific allegations against the appellant and noted that co-accused had been granted bail - The absence of sanction under Section 45 of the UAP Act was significant - The court quashed the lower court's order and granted bail. (Paras 1, 10, 14, 16)
(B) Criminal Procedure - The court emphasized that similar cases with identical allegations should be treated consistently unless distinguishable facts are presented. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The appeal was against the rejection of bail for the appellant in a case involving multiple accused with vague allegations. The appellant had been in custody since 20.07.2023 and had been acquitted in three prior cases.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the appellant's situation was similar to that of co-accused who had been granted bail, and the absence of required sanction under the UAP Act was noted.
Issues: The main issue was whether the allegations against the appellant were sufficient to deny bail, especially in light of similar cases where bail was granted.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the lack of specific allegations and the absence of sanction under the UAP Act warranted the granting of bail, emphasizing the need for consistent treatment of similarly situated accused.
Result: The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was granted bail.
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dated 26.07.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chatra in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.919 of 2023 whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with Piparwar P.S. Case No.36 of 2019, registered for the offence under Sections 385, 386, 387 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 17(i)(ii) of the C.L.A. Act and Sections 16, 17, 20 and 23 of the UAP Act, has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that there is no specific allegation said to attract any penal offence including the offence under UAP Act, 1967. Such submission has been made on the ground that there is general and omnibus allegation against 77 accused persons, as would be evident from the F.I.R. but there is no specific attributability said to be committed by the present appellant.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that in the present case no sanction has been granted by the competent authority as required under Section 45 of the UAP Act, 1967 and, as such, even the cognizance has not been taken for the offence under the UAP Act.
4. The submission has also been made that the State in the affidavit-in-objection has shown six (06) criminal cases pending against him but out of six (06) cases, in three (03) criminal cases, the appellant has been acquitted. The most of the cases are under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 20.07.2023.
5. The ground has also been taken that identically placed accused persons have also been directed to be released on bail or have been granted anticipatory bail as per the order appended as Annexure-2 to Annexure-7, namely, Mukesh Ganjhu @ Muneshwar Ganjhu vide order dated 30.03.2022 in B.A. No.611 of 2022, Kayum Ansari @ Abdul Kayum Ansari vide order dated 28.01.2022 in B.A. No.15282 of 2021, Arjun Ganjhu vide order dated 07.07.2020 in A.B.A. No.9007 of 2019, Darshan Ganjhu vide order dated 14.03.2022 in A.B.A. No.1819 of 2022, Md. Aslam @ Aslam Miyan vide order dated 10.07.2020 in A.B.A. No.2434 of 2020 and Kinu Rana vide order dated 20.07.2020 in A.B.A. No.2421 of 2020.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted it is a fit case where the impugned order may be interfered with.
7. While on the other hand, Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Jharkhand, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but the fact about acquittal in three cases, i.e., Piparwar P.S. Case No.62 of 2003, Piparwar P.S. Case No.20 of 2004and Piparwar P.S. Case No.42 of 2009, has not been disputed since the same is available on record.
8. Further, in the present case sanction, as required under Section 45 of the UAP Act, has still not been granted which is also available in the status report which was called for by this Court vide order dated 1st February, 2024.
9. This Court, after going through the F.I.R., has found that identical allegations have been levelled against 77 accused persons and some of the accused persons, namely, Mukesh Ganjhu @ Muneshwar Ganjhu vide order dated 30.03.2022 in B.A. No.611 of 2022, Kayum Ansari @ Abdul Kayum Ansari vide order dated 28.01.2022 in B.A. No.15282 of 2021, Arjun Ganjhu vide order dated 07.07.2020 in A.B.A. No.9007 of 2019, Darshan Ganjhu vide order dated 14.03.2022 in A.B.A. No.1819 of 2022, Md. Aslam @ Aslam Miyan vide order dated 10.07.2020 in A.B.A. No.2434 of 2020 and Kinu Rana vide order dated 20.07.2020 in A.B.A. No.2421 of 2020 have been granted regular/anticipatory bail by the learned Single Judge.
10. This Court, however, is exercising the power of appellate jurisdiction over the order passed by the concerned learned court whereby the prayer for regular bail has been rejected but considering the fact that the learned Single J
The court ruled that vague allegations against multiple accused do not justify denial of bail, especially when co-accused have been granted bail under similar circumstances.
The court can grant bail if the appellant is in custody for an extended period without charge framing, despite serious allegations and criminal antecedents.
Prolonged judicial custody without trial progress and lack of incriminating evidence can justify granting bail, emphasizing the right to timely justice under Article 21.
The principle of parity in bail applies when co-accused face identical charges, warranting similar treatment unless distinct circumstances exist.
The court established that interim bail cannot be granted under the NIA Act or UAPA in the absence of statutory provisions allowing for such relief.
Bail applications must consider trial progress and the defendant's history; prolonged detention without trial progress can justify granting bail.
Appellate courts can intervene in bail decisions where delays in trial proceedings occur, especially when co-accused are granted bail under similar serious allegations.
The mere existence of pending criminal cases cannot justify the denial of bail without considering the accused's specific involvement in the crime.
Court emphasized the principles of bail, including the significance of parity and the duration of custody, leading to a decision to grant bail despite criminal antecedents.
The court ruled that the denial of bail was unjustified as similar co-accused were granted bail or acquitted, necessitating similar treatment for the appellant.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
