Jharkhand High Court
Mohan Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 June, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Ambuj Nath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1159 of 2018
1. Mohan Yadav.
2. Sanjeev Gorai @ Sanjiv Gorai @ Bangedi.
3. Sudhir Dubey.
4. Kanhaiya Singh --- --- Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
---
For the Appellant no. 3 : Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Adv.
For the Appellant no. 4 : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Adv.
For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl. P.P.
---
Order No. 27 Date: 17/06/2025
I.A No. 1077 of 2020 with I.A. No. 1078 of 2020
Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. :
1. Heard Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned Spl.P.P., who has
pressed I.A. No. 1077/2018 and I.A. No. 1078/2018 as well as Mr.
Jitendra S. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant no. 3 and Mr.
R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the appellant no. 4.
2. Both these interlocutory applications have been preferred
by the State with a prayer for cancellation of bail granted by this
court to the appellant nos. 3 and 4 vide separate orders dated 18-
02-2019 in I.A. No. 1432/19 and 07-03-2019 passed in I.A. No.
1898/2019 respectively.
3. The appellant no. 1 (Mohan Yadav), against the order
dated 06-04-2022 passed in I.A. No. 7296/2021 which was with a
prayer for grant of bail to him during the pendency of the appeal,
had moved the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal
(Crl.) No(s).- 8124/2023 in which an order was passed on 02-04-
2025 which reads as under:
“1. During hearing, it has been brought to
our notice that the co-accused, namely, Sudhir
Dubey and Kanhaiya Singh who were convicted
and sentenced by the same order of the Sessions
Court and similar to the petitioner whose jail
sentences have 2 been suspended by the High
Court in the year 2019 itself. The case of the
petitioner is not distinguishable from them, hence
even on parity he may be granted bail.
2. The state, by filing additional affidavit has
brought to our notice that the application for
cancellation the suspension of sentence is
pending before the High Court in which time was
granted to the accused persons to file counter
affidavit.
3. As the application for cancellation of the
suspension of sentence is pending before the
High Court and the issue of parity has been
raised before us, we deem it appropriate to
request the High Court to decide the application
for cancellation of suspension of sentence filed by
the State at the earliest, as far as possible within
one month.
4. A copy of this order be sent to the Registrar
(Judicial) of the High Court of Jharkhand at
Ranchi for listing the case within three days
before the appropriate Bench for decision on the
application for cancellation of suspension of
sentence. We make it clear that the said
application be decided on its own merits.”
4. The appeal was preferred by four appellants against the
judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30-07-2018
(sentence passed on 31-07-2018) by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-V, Jamshedpur whereby and whereunder, the
appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section
302/120B IPC and the appellant nos. 1 and 2 have further been
convicted for the offences under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of
the Arms Act and all the appellants have been sentenced
accordingly.
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1159 of 2018
Page 2 of 11
5. The appellant no. 3 (Sudhir Dubey) had moved for grant
of bail during the pendency of the appeal in I.A. No. 1432/2019
and vide order dated 18-02-2019, he was granted bail. Similarly,
the appellant no. 4 (Kanhaiya Singh) had moved for grant of bail
during pendency of the appeal in I.A. No. 1898/2019 which was
allowed vide order dated 07-03-2019. The appellant No. 1 (Mohan
Yadav) had also moved for grant of bail in I.A. No. 720/2020 which
was rejected on 17-03-2020. The appellant no. 1 had renewed his
bail for grant of bail in I.A. No. 7296/2021 which was once again
rejected on 06-04-2022 against which the appellant no. 1 had
moved the Hon’ble Supreme Court in which an order was passed
on 02-04-2025 and which has been quoted hereinabove.
6. Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned Spl. P.P. in support of his
prayer made for cancellation of the bail granted to the appellant
nos. 3 and 4 has submitted that the evidence during trial and the
confessional statements of the appellants reveal that these
appellants were instrumental in providing cash and arms to the
appellant no. 1 to commit the murder of Amit Rai. The recovery of
arms and cartridges from the possession of the appellant nos. 3
and 4 has led to their conviction in Sonari P.S. Case No. 04/2017.
It has been submitted that the appellant nos. 3 and 4 are close
associates of Akhilesh Singh, a dreaded gangster of Jamshedpur,
who is involved in extortion, threat and murder in his area of
operation. There are 57 cases lodged against the gangster Akhilesh
Singh. It has also been submitted that several cases of Akhilesh
Singh are at the stage of trial and there is every possibility of the
threat perception of the appellant nos. 3 and 4 to gain over the
witnesses or intimidate them. The appellant no. 3 has eighteen (18)
cases of heinous nature lodged against him, while the appellant no.
4 has thirteen (13) cases instituted against him. This would
indicate that both are dreaded criminals. It has been submitted
that due to the fear of these appellants, several businessmen are
planning to leave Jamshedpur and several station diary entries
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1159 of 2018
Page 3 of 11
have been made. Several criminal cases have also been instituted
against the appellant nos. 3 and 4, the details of which have been
enumerated as follows:
Cases registered against appellant no. 3, Sudhir
Dubey-
(i) Sitaramdera P.S. Case No. 47/2020, date-
30.04.2020, u/s-188/269/270/120B/34 of IPC and
27 Arms Act.
(ii) Sitaramdera P.S. Case No. 45/2020, date-
30.04.2020, u/s- 324/326/307/34 of IPC and 27
Arms Act.
(iii) Telco P.S. Case No. 24/2021, date- 21.01.2021, u/s-
147/148/148/452/504/506/387/120B of IPC.
(iv) Telco P.S. Case No. 25/2021, date- 22.01.2021, u/s-
25(1-b)a/26/35 Arms Act and 120(B) of IPC.
Cases registered against appellant no. 4, Kanhaiya
Singh-
(i) Sitaramdera P.S. Case No. 46/2020, date-
30.04.2020, u/s 147/148/149/307/290/504/506/
120B of IPC and 27 Arms Act.
(ii) Sitaramdera P.S. Case No. 47/2020, date-
30.04.2020, u/s- 188/269/270/120B/34 of IPC and
27 Arms Act.
(iii) Sitaramdera P.S. Case No. 10/2023, date
28.01.2023, u/s- 25(1-b)a/25b/26/35 Arms Act.
(iv) Bagbera P.S. Case No. 65/2024, date- 02.05.2024,
u/s 307/34/120B of IPC and 27 Arms Act.
(v) Bagbera P.S. Case No. 01/2023, date- 01.01.2023,
u/s- 341/323/324/427/504/506 of IPC.
(vi) Bagbera P.S. Case No. 20/2022, date 11.02.2022,
u/s- 147/148/149/450/307/504/506 of IPC.
(vii) Jugsalai P.S. Case No. 02/2023, date- 02.01.2023,
u/s- 452/307/504/506 of IPC and 27 Arms Act.
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1159 of 2018
Page 4 of 11
7. Mr. Ojha has referred to the case of Somesh Chaurasia
v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2021) 19 SCC 480 in
support of his plea regarding cancellation of bail granted to the
appellant nos. 3 and 4.
8. Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant
no. 3 has submitted that imputation against Akhilesh Singh does
not have any relevance with the subject matter of the present
interlocutory applications. There is no reliable and authentic
information on record suggestive of the fact that the appellant no. 3
had prevented the witnesses from appearing in the Court and have
gained them over. It has been submitted that out of 18 criminal
antecedents, the appellant no. 3 has been acquitted in most of
them. Mr. Singh has further submitted that the appellant no. 3 is
on bail in Sitaramdera P.S. Case No. 45/2020, Telco P.S. Case No.
25/2021, Telco P.S. Case No. 24/2021, Olidih P.S. Case No.
56/2021 and Sitaramdera P.S. Case No. 47/2020.
9. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the
appellant no. 4 has submitted that after the appellant no. 4 was
granted bail by the Court, 07 cases had been instituted against
him in which he has been acquitted in Sitaramdera P.S. Case No.
47/2020 and in the rest 06 cases, he is on bail. Mr. Mazumdar has
submitted that most of the cases are either relating to a civil
dispute or is by way of retaliation to the cases filed by the appellant
no. 4 or being implicated on the confessional statement of co-
accused. Nothing has been brought on record by the State in
support of the contention that the appellant no. 4 has tampered
with the evidence or threatened the witnesses.
10. The orders granting bail to the appellant nos. 3 and 4
during the pendency of the appeal is on the anvil of absence of any
eyewitnesses to the case and the confessional statement of co-
accused persons. Mr. Ojha, learned Spl. P.P. has primarily focused
on the supervening circumstances which is of the appellant nos. 3
and 4 indulging themselves in criminal activity after being granted
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1159 of 2018
Page 5 of 11
bail by this Court.
11. In Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in
(2022) 8 SCC 559, it has been held as follows:
“31. This Court has reiterated in several
instances that bail once granted, should not be
cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering
whether any supervening circumstances have
rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow
the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the
concession of bail during trial. Having said that, in
case of cancellation of bail, very cogent and
overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an
order directing cancellation of bail (which was already
granted).
32. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Dolat
Ram v. State of Haryana [Dolat Ram v. State of
Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 237] laid
down the grounds for cancellation of bail which are:
(i) interference or attempt to interfere with
the due course of administration of justice;
(ii) evasion or attempt to evade the due
course of justice;
(iii) abuse of the concession granted to the
accused in any manner;
(iv) possibility of the accused absconding;
(v) likelihood of/actual misuse of bail;
(vi) likelihood of the accused tampering with
the evidence or threatening witnesses.
33. It is no doubt true that cancellation of bail
cannot be limited to the occurrence of supervening
circumstances. This Court certainly has the inherent
powers and discretion to cancel the bail of an accused
even in the absence of supervening circumstances.
Following are the illustrative circumstances where the
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1159 of 2018
Page 6 of 11
bail can be cancelled:
33.1. Where the court granting bail takes into
account irrelevant material of substantial
nature and not trivial nature while ignoring
relevant material on record.
33.2. Where the court granting bail overlooks
the influential position of the accused in
comparison to the victim of abuse or the
witnesses especially when there is prima
facie misuse of position and power over the
victim.
33.3. Where the past criminal record and
conduct of the accused is completely ignored
while granting bail.
33.4. Where bail has been granted on
untenable grounds.
33.5. Where serious discrepancies are found
in the order granting bail thereby causing
prejudice to justice.
33.6. Where the grant of bail was not
appropriate in the first place given the very
serious nature of the charges against the
accused which disentitles him for bail and
thus cannot be justified.
33.7. When the order granting bail is
apparently whimsical, capricious and
perverse in the facts of the given case.
34. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru
Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3
SCC (Cri) 527] , the accused was granted bail by the
High Court. In an appeal against the order [Mitthan
Yadav v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 16031] of
the High Court, a two-Judge Bench of this Court
examined the precedents on the principles that guideCr. Appeal (DB) No. 1159 of 2018
Page 7 of 11
grant of bail and observed as under : (SCC p. 513,
para 12)
“12. … It is well settled in law that
cancellation of bail after it is granted because
the accused has misconducted himself or of
some supervening circumstances warranting
such cancellation have occurred is in a
different compartment altogether than an
order granting bail which is unjustified,
illegal and perverse. If in a case, the relevant
factors which should have been taken into
consideration while dealing with the
application for bail have not been taken note
of or it is founded on irrelevant
considerations, indisputably the superior
court can set aside the order of such a grant
of bail. Such a case belongs to a different
category and is in a separate realm. While
dealing with a case of second nature, the
court does not dwell upon the violation of
conditions by the accused or the supervening
circumstances that have happened
subsequently. It, on the contrary, delves into
the justifiability and the soundness of the
order passed by the court.”
35. This Court in Mahipal [Mahipal v. Rajesh
Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 558]
held that : (SCC p. 126, para 17)
“17. Where a court considering an application
for bail fails to consider relevant factors, an
appellate court may justifiably set aside the
order granting bail. An appellate court is thus
required to consider whether the order
granting bail suffers from a non-application ofCr. Appeal (DB) No. 1159 of 2018
Page 8 of 11
mind or is not borne out from a prima facie
view of the evidence on record. It is thus
necessary for this Court to assess whether,
on the basis of the evidentiary record, there
existed a prima facie or reasonable ground to
believe that the accused had committed the
crime, also taking into account the
seriousness of the crime and the severity of
the punishment.”
36. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Prakash
Kadam v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta [Prakash
Kadam v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta, (2011) 6
SCC 189 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 848] held that : (SCC p.
195, paras 18-19)
“18. In considering whether to cancel
the bail, the court has also to consider the
gravity and nature of the offence, prima
facie case against the accused, the position
and standing of the accused, etc. If there
are very serious allegations against the
accused, his bail may be cancelled even if
he has not misused the bail granted to him.
19. In our opinion, there is no absolute
rule that once bail is granted to the accused
then it can only be cancelled if there is
likelihood of misuse of bail. That factor,
though no doubt important, is not the only
factor. There are several other factors also
which may be seen while deciding to cancel
the bail.”
12. In Abdul Basit v. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhry
reported in (2014) 10 SCC 754, while discussing the powers of
the High Court to cancel bail granted to an accused under Section
439(2) Cr.P.C., it has been observed that typically the following
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1159 of 2018
Page 9 of 11
conduct of the accused would result in the cancellation of bail–
(i) misuse of liberty by engaging in similar criminal
activity;
(ii) interference with the course of investigation;
(iii) tampering of evidence or witnesses;
(iv) threatening of witnesses or engaging in similar
activities which would hinder the investigation;
(v) possibility of fleeing to another country;
(vi) attempts to become scarce by becoming
unavailable for investigation or going
underground; and
(vii) being out of the reach of their surety.
Similar considerations govern the cancellation of bail
at the post-conviction stage under the second proviso
to Section 389(1) Cr.P.C.
13. In Somesh Chaurasia v. State of M.P. reported in
(2021) 19 SCC 480, it has been held as follows:
“39. There are distinct doctrinal concepts in
criminal law, namely,
(i) the grant of bail before trial or,
what is described as the “pre-
conviction” stage;
(ii) setting aside an order granting
bail when the principles which
must weigh in the decision on
whether bail should be granted
have been overlooked or wrongly
applied;
(ii) the post-conviction suspension
of sentence under the provisions
of Section 389(1); and
(iv) the cancellation of bail on the
ground of supervening events,
such as the conduct of theCr. Appeal (DB) No. 1159 of 2018
Page 10 of 11
accused during the period of bail,
vitiating the continuance of bail.
14. Though the order granting bail to the appellant nos. 3
and 4 does not seem to reflect about their criminal antecedents,
but at the same time, we must also take into note that in most of
the cases, both the appellants have been acquitted. So far as the
cases instituted post grant of bail to the appellant nos. 3 and 4 is
concerned, they have been granted bail as stated in their
respective affidavits. In the recent affidavit filed by the State,
mention has been made of 04 cases instituted after the appellant
no. 3 was granted bail and the last case instituted was on 22-01-
2021. No mention has been made of any case instituted after
2021. So far as the appellant no. 4 is concerned, out of the 07
cases instituted, 03 cases are of the year 2022, 2023 and 2024
and the commonality of these cases are the presence of Monu
Singh, who seems to be an adversary to the appellant no. 4. In one
case being Sitaramdera P.S. Case No. 47/2020, the appellant
no. 4 has been acquitted by the learned trial court. Barring the
criminal cases instituted at the behest of Monu Singh, there has
been a lull in the purported criminal activities of the appellant
no. 4. It also seems that the prosecution has not been able to
secure conviction in any case, except the present one and in most
of the cases instituted against the appellant nos. 3 and 4, they
have been acquitted. In view of the aforesaid, therefore, we are not
inclined to cancel the bail granted to the appellant nos. 3 and 4 in
I.A. No. 1432/2019 and I.A. No. 1898/2019 dated 18-02-2019 and
07-03-2019 respectively and consequently, the present
interlocutory applications stand dismissed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Ambuj Nath, J.)
Preet/-
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1159 of 2018
Page 11 of 11