Prolonged custody and lack of progress in trial justify granting bail, especially when co-accused with similar circumstances have been released.

ORDER :

1. The instant appeal filed under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 29.04.2024 passed by the learned A.J.C-XVIII-cum-Spl. Judge, ATS, Ranchi by which the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in Miscellaneous Criminal Appeal No. 1298 of 2024 arising out of Ranchi ATS P.S. Case No. 05 of 2023 corresponding to Ranchi ATS, Ranchi and ATS Case No. 03 of 2023 registered under Sections25(1AA), 25(6), 25(7), 26/35 of the ARMS ACT has been rejected.

2. It has further been contended that although the prayer for regular bail of the appellant was rejected on earlier occasion as it is evident from the order dated 6^th February 2024 passed in Criminal Appeal (D.B) No. 1824 of 2023 but subsequent thereto out of nine (09) witnesses only two (02) witnesses have been examined while the appellant is in judicial custody for the last 19 months.

3. The submission has been made that the identically placed co-accused persons, namely, Tinku Singh whose bail has also been rejected earlier by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, however, considering the period of custody of 16 months, the co-accused person namely Tinku Singh has been directed to be released on bail by this Court vide order dated 1^st October 2024 in Criminal Appeal (D.B) No. 491 of 2024.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the present appeal may be allowed.

5. While on the other hand, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State has vehemently opposed the prayer to interfere with the impugned order so far as the implication of the present appellant in the instant case is concerned. However, with respect to the period of custody of 19 months and the order of bail with respect to one co-accused Tinku Singh has not been disputed.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the rival submissions has found that, the prayer for bail of the present appellant was earlier rejected.

7. The present application has been filed on the ground of slow progress in the trial, since, out of the nine (09) witnesses only two (02) witnesses have been examined while the appellant has already remained in custody for 19 months.

8. It is further evident from the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench dated 1^st October 2024 passed in Criminal Appeal (D.B) No. 491 of 2024 whereby and whereunder, the accused, Tinku Singh has been directed to be released on bail after taking into consideration the period of custody i.e. of 16 months of the said appellant which was considered even after rejection of the prayer for bail on earlier occasion which is evident from the Paragraph 6 of the said order dated 1^st October 2024 passed in Criminal Appeal (D.B) No. 491 of2024.

9. Further, the identically placed co-accused person, namely, Rajesh Jha has been directed to be released on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 6^th December 2023 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1455 of 2023, therefore, there is no reason to take distinct view with respect to the case of the present appellant.

10. Accordingly, the order dated 29.04.2024 passed by the learned A.J.C-XVIII-cum-Spl. Judge, ATS, Ranchi in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 1298 of 2024 arising out of Ranchi ATS P.S. Case No. 05 of 2023 corresponding to Ranchi ATS, Ranchi and ATS Case No. 03 of 2023 by which the prayer for regular bail of the appellant registered under Sections 25(1AA), 25(6), 25(7), 26/35 of the ARMS ACT was rejected, is hereby quashed and set aside.

11. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.

12. In consequence thereo