In Md. Mursheed @ Md. Murseed @ Surma vs. The State of Bihar & Anr.(2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Vipul M. Pancholi and Sunil Dutta Mishra concluded:"we are of the view that the request made by the appellant for grant of bail cannot be entertained." The present appeal was dismissed. The other respondent was Under Secretary to the Government of India, National Investigation Agency (NIA), Ministry of Home Affairs, CTCR Division.
The appeal was filed under Section 21(4) of the NIA Act, 2008 for release of the appellant on bail. The F.I.R. dated September 7, 2018 came to be filed for committing the offence punishable under Sections 121/ 379/ 414/ 120(B)/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 25(1-a)/25(1-aa)/ 25(1-b)a/ 26/35 of the Arms Act and under Section 39 of the U.A.P. Act. The Superintendent of Police, Munger, Bihar had requested by informing the Ministry of Home Affairs regarding the registration of the said case. Thereafter, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued an order dated October 4, 2018, directing the NIA to take over the investigation of the case bearing Muffasil P.S. Case No. 323 of 2018. NIA registered the said case on October 5, 2018.
The appellant's counsel submitted that the appellant was implicated in the incident in question pursuant to the confessional statement made by the co-accused. He submitted that there is no material in the papers of the charge-sheet against the appellant.
But it was pointed out that there are statements of protected witnesses who have given statement against the appellant.
The appellant's counsel referred the cross-examination of one of the protected witnesses and thereafter contended that the statements of the said witnesses were recorded by the respondent agency by giving threats to him.
He contended that the appellant is in custody since January, 2020 and, therefore, the appellant be released on bail.
The counsel for N.I.A. opposed the prayer for grant of bail. He submitted that the appeal is a successive application filed by the appellant. In fact, appellant had filed Criminal Appeal (DB) No.842 of 2023 before the High Court for releasing him on bail. But when the Court was not inclined to release the appellant on bail, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant had withdrawn the appeal after the Court, permitted him to do so by its order dated April 5, 2024. The counsel for N.I.A. would thereafter submit that the appellant had failed to point out any change of circumstance. It is also submitted that more than 6 accused preferred the appeal for grant of bail. However, the Court vide separate orders passed in the case of co-accused, rejected such prayer. It also submitted that, in some of the cases, the concerned co-accused preferred S.L.P. before the Supreme Court. However, the order passed by the High Court was not interfered with.
The N.I.A. further submitted that the Supreme Court has given direction to the concerned Trial Court to conclude the trial before May 16, 2025 and, therefore, trial of the present case would be over in near future. It was submitted that out of 106 witnesses the prosecution has examined approximately 96 witnesses. The trial of the case would be over immediately and, therefore, at this stage, the High Court decided not to release the appellant on bail.
It was submitted that there are 7 antecedents of the appellant and, therefore, on this ground also, his prayer for grant of bail may not be entertained.
The Court observed: "It is pertinent to note that though the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has placed on record the order dated 05.04.2024 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 842 of 2023, whereby this Court permitted the learned counsel appearing for the present appellant to withdraw the said appeal and thereby the request made by the appellant for grant of bail was not entertained and though the said order has been annexed, learned counsel did not point out the said fact during the course of his argument and he had argued the matter as if, for the first time, he has filed the appeal for grant of bail. Thus, the fact remains that the present is a successive appeal filed by the appellant for grant of bail."
It also observed: "The appellant has failed to point out the change of circumstance. The only ground which could be argued by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is in custody since 24th January, 2020 i.e. since last more than 5 years. However, it is relevant to note that, as per the case of the Respondent-N.I.A., out of 106 witnesses, prosecution has already examined 96 witnesses and it has been stated by the learned counsel that, as per the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of one of the co-accused, the Trial Court is required to complete the trial before 16th May, 2025. Thus, we are of the view that when the trial is at the verge of completion, the prayer for grant of bail cannot be entertained at this stage, and that too in the present successive appeal filed by the appellant."
The Court recorded: "we would like to observe that the prayer for grant of bail made by co-accused Bajrang Shankar (in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 704 of 2021), Manoj Kumar Singh (in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 563 of 2023), Md. Niyazur Rahman @Niyazul Rahman @ Golu (in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 759 of 2023), Md. Irfan @ Md. Irfan Alam (in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.948 of 2023) & Shivendra Rajak @ Sheelendra Rajak @Shailendra Rajak (in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 381 of 2024) has not been entertained by this Court vide separate orders."
No comments:
Post a Comment