Jharkhand High Court
Rohit Oraon @ Rohit Toppo vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 April, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:11303-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.135 of 2025
-----
Rohit Oraon @ Rohit Toppo, aged about 30 years, S/o Kalstu Oraon, R/o
Village-Harra Patra Toli, PO & PS-Chainpur, District-Gumla
… … 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 : Mrs. Sweety Topno, Advocate
Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mrs. Lily Sahay, A.P.P.
——
th
Order No.09 /Dated:11 April, 2025
1. In compliance of the order dated 07.04.2025 explanation as
sought for by this Court has been received which is kept on the record.
2. We after going through the statement as referred in paragraph
no.2 thereof when posed a question to the learned counsel appearing for
the State, Mrs. Lily Sahay, the learned APP she has submitted that such
submission has been made on misconception and she owes
accountability of the same which is based upon the information given
by her advocate clerk.
3. Considering the said explanation the same is being accepted.
4. The reference has been made at paragraph no.5 of the
explanation of wrong reference of the date of the filing which has been
referred in the presentation form as 07.07.2025 in place of 07.04.2025.
5. The learned APP has sought for leave of this Court to make
necessary correction in the same.
6. Let necessary correction be done in the presentation form
during course of the day.
7. In view of the aforesaid, the leave as sought for by the learned
State counsel to accept the filing of affidavit in objection is allowed.
2025:JHHC:11303-DB
8. Let the same be kept on record.
9. Since the counter affidavit is on record, as such, the matter is
being heard on merit.
10. The instant appeal under section 21(4) of the National
Investigation Agency Act, 2008 has been directed against the order
dated 05.10.2024 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I-cum-
Spl. Judge, Gumla in B.P No.675 of 2024 in connection with S.T. (Spt.)
No.87 of 2017 arising out of Chainpur PS Case No.27 of 2013 whereby
and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant registered
for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 353, 427/197 of the IPC, under
Section 27 of the Arms Act, under Section 3/4 of the Explosive
Substance Act and under Section 17 of the CLA Act has been rejected.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted
that the present appellant is innocent and has committed no offence.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that
other co-accused persons have been acquitted by the learned trial Court.
So far as the issue on merit is concerned, no incriminating material has
been recovered said to be from the possession of the present appellant
as also no causality, as per the prosecution version is there. Therefore,
the same ought to have been taken into consideration by the learned
trial Court while considering the prayer for regular bail of the appellant.
13. It has been contended that the appellant is in judicial custody
since 19.09.2024.
14. Based on the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the
appellant has submitted that the aforesaid fact has not been considered
by the learned trial Court while rejecting the regular bail of the present
appellant and, as such, the impugned order may be interfered with.
2
2025:JHHC:11303-DB
15. While on the other hand, learned APP 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.
16. It has been contended by referring the conduct of the present
appellant to the effect that the case is of the year 2013 and the charge
sheet has been submitted some time in the year 2016 and since then the
appellant remained absconder. The learned trial Court has to initiate the
trial in absence of the present appellant by splitting up the trial while
the trial of the other co-accused persons is proceeded. The appellant
after lapse of 8 years has arrested on 19.09.2024.
17. The learned State counsel in the backdrop of the aforesaid has
submitted that taking into consideration of the conduct of the present
appellant, the prayer for regular bail of the present appellant has rightly
been rejected by the learned trial Court and, as such, it cannot be said
that while considering the prayer for regular bail of the appellant the
decision which has been taken by the learned trial Court suffers from an
error.
18. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone
across the finding/reasoning recorded by the learned trial Court in the
impugned order as also the First Information Report, case diary and
affidavit in objection.
19. It is evident from the material fact that the allegation against the
appellant is serious in nature since it has been alleged that he being the
member of a banned organization, has alleged to be involved in the
destruction of the building of Rajkiya Buniadi Vidyalaya, Kurumgarh
which has been destroyed by explosion of bomb by the extremist.
3
2025:JHHC:11303-DB
20. The appellant was implicated in the present case along with the
others. The charge sheet was submitted on 03.08.2016. The appellant
remained absconder for about 8 years and finally he was taken into
custody on 19.09.2024, but in the meanwhile, the learned trial Court
has to split up the trial of the present appellant and even thereafter, the
appellant has not appeared, hence, the trial is proceeded in his absence.
21. It has been informed by the learned counsel appearing for the
State that the trial so far it relates to the present appellant is concerned,
is going on and the case is at the stage of evidence and, as such, taking
into consideration of the conduct of the present appellant of being
absconded for about 8 years, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit
case to interfere with the impugned order.
22. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed.
23. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will not
prejudice the case on merit, since, the trial is pending.
24. I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Sudhir
4