The court can grant bail if the appellant is in custody for an extended period without charge framing, despite serious allegations and criminal antecedents.

ORDER :

1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dated 12.07.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chatra in Misc. Criminal Application No.703 of 2024 whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with Chatra Sadar P.S. Case No.74 of 2024, registered for the offence under Sections 147 , 148, 149, 120-B, 353, 307, 302, 504, 506, 323, 325, 324, 326 and 333 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , Section 27(3) of the ARMS ACT , Section 17 (i)(ii) of the CLA Act and Section 16 , 18, 20, 38, 39 and 19 of the UAP Act, has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is a case where the chargesheet was submitted 24.08.2024 but as yet the charge has not been framed due to want of sanction as required under Section 45 of the UAP Act.

3. It has been contended that the name of the present appellant has been dragged in the present case on the basis of the confessional statement co-accused person but nothing has been recovered from the conscious or physical possession of the appellant. Even there is no material having been collected in course of investigation regarding the nexus of the present appellant with the group of banned organization.

4. Learned counsel has further submitted that the objection against the present appellant is of the five pending cases including the present one.

5. It has been submitted by placing the order passed in connection with pending criminal cases that in B.Nagar P.S. Case No.60 of 2013, the appellant has been acquitted.

6. It has been submitted that in one case, i.e., B.Nagar P.S. case No.21 of 2024, the appellant has been directed to be enlarged on bail by the learned court itself and in another case, i.e., POCSO Case No.09 of 2015 the appellant has been directed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court to be enlarged on bail by suspending the sentence vide order dated 02.07.2019 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1924 of 2017.

7. It has further been submitted that one case is at the stage of evidence.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that it is a fit case to interfere with the impugned order.

9. While on the other hand, Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, learned Special Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State, has vehemently opposed the prayer to show interference with the impugned order.

10. It has been contended that the appellant is having five criminal antecedents and in the present case the allegation is serious in nature.

11. Learned State counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that it is not a fit case to interfere with the impugned order.

12. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties, gone through the finding recorded by the learned court in the impugned order as also the case diary.

13. This Court, taking into consideration the fact that the appellant is in custody since 01.05.2024 and charge has not yet been framed due to want of sanction, is of the view that the impugned order needs interference.

14. Accordingly, order dated 12.07.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chatra in Misc. Criminal Application No.703 of 2024, is hereby quashed and set aside.

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

16. 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 Sessions Judge, Chatra in connection with Chatra Sadar P.S. Case No.74 of 2024, subject to the condition that the appellant shall appear before the court c