IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1413 of 2024 ------

Nirmal Kido, aged 27 years, S/o Late Lajrus Kido, Resident of Keundih Birhortoli, P.O. & P.S. Pakartanr, District- Simdega., Jharkhand.

... Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ------

For the Appellant : Mr. Sunil Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P.

------

06/Dated: 1^st May, 2025 I.A. No. 4218 of 2025:

1. It is a case where the interlocutory application being IA No. 11963 of

2024 has been disposed of vide order dated 7^th January, 2025, by which the prayer for suspension of sentence has been allowed with a direction for release of the appellant, namely, Nirmal Kido on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Simdega in connection with Sessions Trial No. 160 of 2022, in Para- 16 of the said order. For ready reference, Para-16 of the said order is being referred herein which reads as under:

“16. Accordingly, the appellant, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Simdega in connection with in Sessions Trial No. 160 of 2022 arising out of Pakartanr P.S. Case No. 18 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 308 of 2022.”

2. The case has been listed on the basis of application received to the District Legal Services Authority, Simdega wherein the request was made to the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Simdega that even though the direction has been passed by this Court vide order dated 07.01.2025 in interlocutory application being I.A. No. 11963 of 2024 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1413 of 2024 for his release and even communicated to the family members, but nobody has come to furnish the sureties along with the bonds, as per the direction passed in order dated 07.01.2025. Hence the request has been made for his release on the P.R. bond.

3. The matter has been put before this Court on the basis of the said letter communicated by the High Court Legal Services Committee, Ranchi.

4. This Court has passed order seeking report from the District Legal Services Authority, Simdega and the report has been furnished, informing this Court that nobody has come to furnish the bail-bonds. Such report has been furnished on the basis of the enquiry conducted by the Para Legal Volunteer, namely, Purusholya Das on 17.03.2025 and the said communication dated is available on record.

5. It is evident therefrom that the mother of the appellant, who was being reported as an old lady earning her livelihood by doing labour work, had shown her inability to furnish the bail-bond due to poverty.

6. Mr. Sunil Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted by referring to the judgment passed by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Moti Ram and Others V. State of ’Madhya Pradesh reported in (1978) 4 SCC 47 wherein the Honble Apex Court had laid down the guidelines to consider a situatio’n where even after passing of the order of release and the inmate has not come out from the custody, then the order is to be passed by the Court by modifying the order which has been passed for release of the inmate.

7. It has further been submitted that the Honble Apex Court on

31.01.2023 in SMWP (Criminal) No. 4/2021’ has issued seven directions to avoid delay in release of prisoners after getting bail, out of which one condition being Condition No. 6 is that if the bail bonds are not furnished within one month from the date of grant, the concerned Court may suo moto take up the case and consider whether the conditions of bail require modification/relaxation.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid guidelines as available in the said order, has submitted that the ord