The court found insufficient evidence to justify the denial of bail, emphasizing the lack of recovery from the appellant's possession and the absence of victim testimony.

ORDER :

1. The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 26.11.2024 passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 1260 of 2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chatra wherein the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with Piparwar P.S. Case no. 34 of 2024 registered under Sections 25(1-A), 25(1-B)a, 26 and 35 of Arms Act, under Section 17(1)(ii) of CLA Act and under Section 17, 18, 20 of UA(P) Act has been rejected.

2. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that it is a case where the appellant has been implicated mainly on the ground that he has been caught along with the other co-accused persons from whose possession the incriminating arms have been recovered.

3. It has further been contended that there is no recovery from the physical and conscious possession of the appellant Section 25 is not applicable.

4. The further submission has been made that no ingredient of Section 17, 18, 20 of the UA(P) Act is attracted, since, it is not found in the case diary that the appellant is involved in collecting any money to aid the extremist activities.

5. It has further been submitted that the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 22.08.2024 and the charge-sheet has already been submitted and the appellant is having one criminal antecedent that too is of the year 2016 in which the appellant is on bail.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that it is a fit case in which the impugned order may be interfered with so that the appellant may come out from the custody.

7. While on the other hand, Ms. Priya Shrestha, learned Special Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent State has vehemently opposed the prayer to interfere with the impugned order by submitted that the appellant has been apprehended from the spot and the mobile phone have been recovered from his possession.

8. It has been contended that the appellant is having direct nexus to the extremist activities, taking the aforesaid ground, the regular bail of the appellant has been rejected in the impugned order and the same cannot be said to be suffer from any error.

9. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by the learned Court while passing the impugned order.

10. We, on consideration of the order impugned, has found that the trial Court, while rejecting the prayer of bail of the appellant, has not shown any reason, specific in nature, regarding the allegation of extremist activities.

11. This Court, in order to appreciate the finding so recorded, has gone through the case diary, which has been called for by this Court vide order dated 20^th December, 2024.

12. This Court, on consideration of the material collected in course of investigation as recorded in the case diary, is of the view that there is no recovery of arms and ammunition from the physical or conscious possession of the appellant.

13. Further, no victim has come forward to support the culpability said to be committed by the present appellant.

14. The appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 22.08.2024 and there is one criminal antecedent, as per the report received under the signature of In-charge, Legal Cell, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Chatra on 07.02.2025 in Khalari PS Case No. 20 of 2016 in which the appellant has been shown to be released on bail vide order dated 11.05.2016.

15. This Court, considering the aforesaid fact, is of the view that the impugned order needs to be interfered with.

16. Accordingly, the order dated 26.11.2024 passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 1260 of 2024 in connection with Piparwar P.S. Case No. 34 of 2024 is hereby quashed and set aside.

17. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed subject to the condition not to repeat the occurrence and if any occurrence is repeated the State has the liberty to make