Appellate courts can intervene in bail decisions where delays in trial proceedings occur, especially when co-accused are granted bail under similar serious allegations.

Order :

1.The instant appeal has been filed under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dated 03.09.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-X, Dhanbad in Misc. Criminal Application No.2153 of 2024 whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with Jharia P.S. Case No.23 of 2023 (corresponding to G.R. Case No.2678 of 2023) [S.T. No. 345 of 2023] [S.T. No. 11 of 2024], registered for the offences under Sections 147 , 148, 149, 323, 324, 307 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE added Sections 302, 354 of the I.P.C., Section 27(1- B)(a) of the ARMS ACT , Section 4 /5 of the Explosive Substances Act, has been rejected.

2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case where the prayer for regular bail, although, on earlier occasion has been rejected, however, with the observation to expedite the trial but the trial has not yet been concluded and out of thirteen witnesses, only five witnesses have been examined as yet, while the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 30.08.2023.

3. It has further been contended that in the meanwhile, the other co-accused persons have be directed to be released on bail, against whom, the nature of allegation has been shown to be serious, i.e., the case of Etwari Devi @ Rekha Devi in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 667 of 2023 on 23.08.2023, Dukhrani Devi @ Rani Dhikar and Guriya Devi @ Guria Devi in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1980 of 2023 on 22.01.2024, Bithal Bhuia @ Naresh Bhuia in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 699 of 2024 on 13.06.2024 and Chandan Dhikar @ Chandan Dhikhar in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 61 of 2024 on 22.04.2024.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that it is, therefore, fit case to interfere with the impugned order.

5. While on the other hand, Mrs. Shweta Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State, has vehemently opposed the prayer to interfere with the impugned order so far as the merit is concerned, however, the aforesaid fact has been admitted that the co-accused persons have been directed to be released on bail.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the order dated 23.08.2023, 22.01.2024, 22.04.2024 and 13.06.2024 through which the co-accused persons have been directed to be released on bail and copies have been handed over by learned counsel for the appellant to Mrs. Shweta Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and also gone through the finding recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned order.

7. We have also gone through the earlier order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court rejecting the prayer for bail which is vide order dated 22.04.2022 passed in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.73 of 2024. However, the said rejection was with an observation to expedite the trial. The trial, although, is going on but out of thirteen witnesses only five witnesses have been examined. The appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 30.08.2023.

8. We have considered the issue of antecedent and found from the report of the Officer-In-Charge-cum-Police Inspector, Jharia Police Station, Dhanbad, that the appellant is having no criminal antecedent save and except the present one.

9. The other co-accused persons, in the meanwhile, namely, Etwari Devi @ Rekha Devi, Dukhrani Devi @ Rani Dhikar and Guriya Devi @ Guria Devi, Bithal Bhuia @ Naresh Bhuia and Chandan Dhikar @ Chandan Dhikhar have been directed to be released on bail. This Court is, therefore,