Prolonged judicial custody without trial progress and lack of incriminating evidence can justify granting bail, emphasizing the right to timely justice under Article 21.

Order :

1.The instant appeal has been filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dated 22.08.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latehar in Misc. Criminal Application No.534 of 2024 whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with Latehar P.S. Case No.218 of 2020 (corresponding to G.R. Case No.490 of 2021(S)), registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 307, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 25(1-A), 25(1-B)a, 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act, Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 17 of the C.L.A., has been rejected.

2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that although, the prayer for regular bail made earlier to present appeal being Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.473 of 2023 has been withdrawn on 28.04.2023 but again the prayer has been made on the ground that the progress in the trial is very slow and the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 05.01.2022.

3. It has been contended that identically placed accused persons have been directed to be released on bail, i.e., Sudhir Lohra in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.579 of 2023 on 19.05.2023, Lalu Mistrhy @ Koshal Jee @ Kaushal Kumar @ Lallu Mistry in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1188 of 2022 on 13.12.2022 and Dinesh Yadav in Cr. Appeal (D.B.)No.1459 of 2022 on 07.02.2023.

4. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that it is, therefore, fit case to interfere with the impugned order as also in view of the fact that there is no recovery of any incriminating material from the physical or conscious possession of the present appellant.

5. While on the other hand, Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Special Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State, has vehemently opposed the prayer to interfere with the impugned order particularly on the ground that altogether 24 criminal cases are lying pending against the appellant but the fact about the order by which the identically placed accused persons have been released on bail has not been disputed.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned order.

7. The argument, in opposition has been made by citing 24 criminal cases pending against the appellant. The question, whether the criminal antecedents can come in the way of release at the time of consideration of prayer for regular bail, is virtually the question is to be taken into consideration in the present appeal. That too, in a case where identically placed several accused persons have been directed to be released on bail. The trial, although, is in progress but the charge has been framed on 12.12.2022 but out of ten witnesses only five witnesses have yet been examined. While the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 05.01.2022, therefore, the same cannot be allowed to take the ground of pending criminal cases, when the progress in the trial is very slow keeping the mandate of Article21 of the Constitution of India.

8. In view thereof, the order dated 22.08.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latehar in Misc. Criminal Application No.534 of 2024, is hereby quashed and set aside.

9. In consequence thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.

10. Accordingly, the appellant, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latehar in connection with S.T. No. 159 of 2022, arising out of Latehar P.S. Case No.218 of 2020 (corresponding to G.R. Case No.490 of 2021(S)), subject to the condition that the appellant shall appear before the court concerned on each and every date. Further, appellant shall file an affidavit that he shall not commit such type of offence in future and in case of repetition of the offence, the Investigating Agency is at liberty to make an applica