JUDGMENT :

1. The present D.B. Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “the NIA Act”), assailing the order dated 15.10.2025 passed by the learned Special Court of NIA Cases, Jaipur in Bail Application No. 63/2025, arising out of FIR No. R.C. 01/2024/NIA, Jaipur, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 308(4) and 111(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “the BNS”) and Sections 25, 25(1AA) and 3 of the Arms Act, with the foundational FIR being FIR No. 420/2024 registered at Police Station Neemrana, District Alwar. By the impugned order, the learned Special Court has declined to enlarge the appellant on bail.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND :

2. The prosecution case, as emerging from the record placed before us, is that FIR No. 420/2024 came to be registered at Police Station Neemrana, District Alwar, on 08.09.2024 for offences punishable under Sections 308 and 111(3) of the BNS read with Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. The allegation in the FIR is that two unidentified persons, armed with firearms, fired approximately 35 rounds at Hotel Highway King and thereafter threatened the concerned person with dire consequences, demanding an amount of Rs.5 crore as extortion money and extending a threat to kill in the event the demanded amount was not paid. During the course of investigation into the aforesaid FIR, allegations relating to organised crime and extortion pursuant to an alleged conspiracy came to be levelled against the appellant. The appellant was arrested on 12.11.2024 and has continued to remain in custody thereafter.

SUBMISSIONS BY LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE APPELLANT :-

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant assailed the implication and arrest of the appellant primarily on the ground that his name surfaced during investigation in an interrogation note/statements of a co-accused and that, merely on the basis of such material, the appellant could not have been arrayed as an accused without there being independent and tangible material connecting him with the alleged occurrence. It was contended that the implication of the appellant is founded substantially upon the statement of a co-accused and that a person cannot be subjected to continued incarceration merely on the basis of an allegation made by a co-accused, particularly when such allegation is not supported by independent corroborative material.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has also referred to the alleged person, namely, Manisha, and submitted that, as per the information obtained under the Right to Information Act, she had never named the appellant. It was also submitted that the appellant had already been arrested in another matter and was lodged in Bhondasi Jail, Haryana, prior to the occurrence in question and that, in the present case, his arrest was effected on 12.11.2024 from Bhondasi Jail, Haryana. It was further urged that the appellant has been implicated principally because he happens to be the brother of Kaushal, who is stated to be a recognised gangster of Haryana, and that such familial relationship, by itself, cannot constitute a legally sustainable basis for attributing criminal liability to the appellant.

5. Learned counsel further submitted that several criminal cases have been registered against the appellant in the past and that, out of a total of 21 cases referred to by the prosecution, the appellant has already been acquitted in a majority of the cases and the criminal proceedings therein have come to an end. Therefore, mere registration of criminal cases cannot be treated as proof of criminal conduct or guilt in the present case.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant had lastly submitted that the appellant has remained in custody for a period of more than 22 months; that the charge-sheet has already been filed; that three supplementary charge-sheets have also been filed; that the provisions of the Unlawful Activiti