Anticipatory bail should be granted when similarly situated co-accused are released, emphasizing equitable treatment in judicial proceedings.

ORDER :

1. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 for setting aside the order dated 25.01.2025 passed in Anticipatory Bail Petition No.262 of 2025 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Dhanbad in connection with Putki P.S. Case No.23 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 337, 353, 307, 387 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and under Section 3/4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908, whereby and whereunder, the appellant’s prayer for anticipatory bail has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that it is a case where the appellant has falsely been implicated.

3. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has got no concern with any of the members of said coal lifting parties and at the time of occurrence of this case, the petitioner was at his duty.

4. Learned counsel has further submitted that no case is made out against the petitioner under alleged Sections of the Indian Penal Code or under the Explosive Substance Act or Section 27 of the Arms Act.

5. It has been contended that identically placed co-accused persons, namely, Kapil Kumar Paswan @ Kapil Paswan and Anil Kumar Singh @ Mantu Singh in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.610 of 2024, Deepak Paswan in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.804 of 2024, Karan Paswan in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1096 of 2024, Prem Yadav in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.841 of 2024 and Ranjit Ravani @ Ranjeet Kumar Rawani in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1563 of 2024 have been directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court, and the case of the present appellant is identically placed, hence, this appeal may also be allowed.

6. Based on the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order may be interfered with.

7. While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor though opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, but, he is fair enough to submit that similarly situated co-accused persons have been granted privilege of pre-arrest bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.

8. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has gone across the impugned order rejecting the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant.

9. It appears from the materials available on record that the allegation reveals that with respect to lifting of coal the dispute had arose which led to a scuffle with the police and thereafter both the sides started pelting stones and hurling bombs as well as fired bullets resulting in one of the accused, namely, Sonu Yadav being seriously injured.

10. First Information Report has been lodged against several named and unknown persons who were amongst the participants of the mob.

11. It further appears that similarly situated co-accused persons, namely, namely, Kapil Kumar Paswan @ Kapil Paswan and Anil Kumar Singh @ Mantu Singh in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.610 of 2024, Deepak Paswan in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.804 of 2024, Karan Paswan in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1096 of 2024, Prem Yadav in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.841 of 2024 and Rankit Ravani @ Ranjeet Kumar Rawani in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1563 of 2024 have been directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court.

12. This Court, on consideration of the fact that similarly situated co-accused persons have been granted privilege of pre- arrest bail, is of the view that the impugned order needs to be interfered with.

13. Accordingly, the order dated 25.01.2025 passed in Anticipatory Bail Petition No.262 of 2025 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Dhanbad in connection with Putki P.S. Case No.23 of 2024, is, hereby, quashed and set