IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Regular bail – Issue of national integrity is also to be taken care of so as to maintain balance.
(2) Precedent – Ratio of judgment is to be applied on the basis of factual aspect involved in each case.

JUDGMENT

I.A. No.10834 of 2024

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.—At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant has sought for leave of this Court to make necessary correction, in the provision of law under which the instant application has been filed, in the cause title of instant Interlocutory Application by deleting ‘5 of the Limitation Act’ and in place thereof inserting ‘21(5) of the N.I.A. Act, 2008’.

2. Considering the nature of prayer, let necessary correction be done by him in course of day in the instant Interlocutory Application.

3. The instant Interlocutory Application has been filed for condonation of delay of 07 days in filing the instant appeal.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. In view of the reasons assigned in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

6. Accordingly, Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 10834 of 2024 stands disposed of.

Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1277 of 2024

Prayer

7. The instant appeal, preferred under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 29.07.2024 passed by learned AJC-XVIcum-Spl. Judge, NIA, Ranchi in Criminal Misc. Application No.2127 of 2024, [Special (NIA) Case No.02/2021] corresponding to R.C. No.02/2021/NIA/RNC, arising out of Toklo P.S. Case No.09 of 2021 registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 120B, 121, 121A, 307, 302 and 333 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.), Section 3/4 of Explosive Substances Act, Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act 1908 and under Sections 16, 20, 38 & 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been rejected.

Argument on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant:

8. It has been contended on behalf of appellant that earlier the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 10th January, 2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1141 of 2023.

9. Prayer for regular bail has been renewed before the learned Special Judge on the ground of delay in trial. According to the appellant, altogether 169 witnesses are to be examined but still only 13 witnesses have been examined and as such by making reference of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the prayer has been made for renewal of regular bail by filing Criminal Misc. Application No.2127 of 2024, before the learned AJC-XVI-cum-Spl. Judge, NIA, Ranchi but the same was dismissed vide orderdated 29.07.2024 without taking into consideration theaforesaid facts.

10. The order dated 29.07.2024 passed by learned AJC-XVI-cum-Spl. Judge, NIA, Ranchi in Criminal Misc. Application No.2127 of 2024 is under challenge by filing the instant appeal.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that altogether 169 witnesses are to be examined out of which only 16 witnesses, the day when the instant appeal was filed was examined and as per instruction, as of now, total 29 witnesses have been examined and as such there is no likelihood of conclusion of the trial at an early date, hence keeping the appellant in judicial custody will amount to violation of principle as laid down under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

12. In order to strengthen his argument, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jalauddin Khan Vs. Union of India [2024 SCC OnLine SC 1945].

Argument by the learned counsel for the respondent-NIA

13. While on the other hand, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel being assisted by Mr. Saurav Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-NIA has vehemently opposed the prayer for renewal of regular bail.

14. It has been submitted by referring to the order 10th January, 2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1141 of 2023 passed by this Court that the regular bail of the appellant on earlier occasion was rejected.

15. It has been submitted by referring to paragraph 57 of the order dated 10th January, 2024 pa