1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.A. (DB) No. 245 of 2023

Nathuni Singh @ Nathuni Ji aged 29 years son of Late

Niranjan Singh, resident of village Matlong, P.O. and P.S.

Manika, District Latehar.

…

Appellant

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

..… …

…

Respondent

-------

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

-------

For the Appellant

: Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate

For the State

: Ms. Anuradha Sahay, APP

------

Order No. 04/Dated 12^th April, 2023

The instant appeal has been filed under Section

21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act against the

order dated 30.01.2023 passed in B.P. No. 34 of 2023 by

learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Latehar whereby and

whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has

been refused in connection with Latehar P.S. Case No. 48 of

2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 69 of 2023 for the

offence

registered

under

Sections

25(1-A)/25(1-

AA)/26(2)/35 of the Arms Act and under Section 17 of the

C.L.A. Act pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Latehar.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted

that the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case.

There is no recovery from the physical possessions of the

appellant. The only allegation against the appellant is that

the informant-police official has heard the name of the

2

appellant from a source basis upon which he has been

named in the F.I.R and further his name has come in the

confession statement of co-accused made before the police

which has not no evidentiary value. Further, the appellant

is in judicial custody since 22.11.2022.

In the backdrop of aforesaid facts, learned counsel

for the appellant has submitted that it is a fit case where

order of rejection of bail passed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge-I, Latehar is required to be set aside and

the appellant may be released on bail.

On the other hand, Ms. Anuradha Sahay, learned

A.P.P on the strength of statement made in case diary has

submitted that on the basis of information that extremist of

banned group-T.S.P.C have assembled at Arwatanr Forest

and planning to execute big crimes conducted joint

operation, however, when they reached there saw 15-20

armed naxals to be there. But on halla being raised by one

of them shouting the name of the present appellant

including others to flee away, they succeeded in fleeing

away taking benefit of forest and hilly area. On search,

various incriminating articles were recovered from the place

of occurrence, seizure of which was made, as would appear

from paragraph 2 of the case diary. Further, referring to

paragraph 21 of the case diary, learned A.P.P has

submitted that the appellant has criminal antecedent in

3

similar nature of cases. Further referring to paragraph 61

of the case diary, learned A.P.P has submitted that the

appellant has confessed his complicity in the occurrence.

In view thereof, submission has been made by

learned A.P.P. that the order passed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge-I, Latehar requires no interference.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties,

perused the contents of case diary as also the order passed

by learned Sessions Judge-I, Latehar.

From perusal of F.I.R., it appears that the appellant

is a named accused. The allegation against the appellant is

that when the State Police in joint campaign with Central

Reserve Police Force Battalion raided Arwatanr Forest,

they saw 15-20 extremists loaded with arms. But seeing the

police party one of them made alert to others saying police

is coming specially naming the appellant and other accused

persons. From the place of occurrence, incriminating

articles i.e., 7.62 mm loaded Bolt Action Rifle alongwith one

alive cartridge in its barrel and four alive cartridge in its

magazine, a .315 loaded without Magazine Bolt Action Riffle

along with one ali