Court emphasized the principles of bail, including the significance of parity and the duration of custody, leading to a decision to grant bail despite criminal antecedents.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 22.10.2024 passed by the learned Vacation Judge, Pakur in Bail Petition No. 257 of 2024, by which the prayer for grant of regular bail of the appellants in connection with Pakur (Malpahari) P.S. Case No.153 of 2024 registered under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 109, 352 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita and under Section 27 of the Arms Act and under Sections ¾ of Explosive Substances Act, has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case.

3. It has been contended on behalf of the appellants that there is no recovery from the possession of the present appellants and even the appellants are not named in the FIR.

4. The ground of parity has also been taken since co-accused person, namely, Mukhtar Shekh @ Moktar Sk. has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 23.10.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1080 of 2024.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants, on the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the impugned order needs to be interfered with so that the appellants be released on bail.

6. While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail but have not disputed the fact about bail having been granted in favour of one co-accused person, namely, Mukhtar Shekh @ Moktar Sk. who has been granted bail vide order dated 23.10.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1080 of 2024.

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor as also learned counsel for the informant have submitted that the appellants are having 03 criminal antecedents, as such, submission has been made that it is not a fit case where the impugned order needs to be interfered with.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants, in response to the submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor as also learned counsel for the informant regarding the criminal antecedents, has submitted that the appellants since are languishing in judicial custody since 28.08.2024 and charge has also been framed and as such, taking into consideration the period of custody as also the principle of parity with the case of the co-accused person, namely, Mukhtar Shekh @ Moktar Sk. so far as the involvement of the present appellants in the present case is concerned, the case of the present appellants may be considered.

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

10. The fact about the criminal antecedents of the appellants has been agitated on behalf of the State which is three in number and the same has not been disputed by the appellants.

11. This Court has taken into consideration that the present appellants are languishing in judicial custody since 28.08.2024 and charge has also been framed and has also taken into consideration that the co- accused person, namely, Mukhtar Shekh @ Moktar Sk. has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 23.10.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1080 of 2024, as such, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to take distinct view with respect to the present appellants.

12. Accordingly, the order dated 22.10.2024 passed in Bail Petition No.257 of 2024 in connection with Pakur (Malpahari) P.S. Case No.153 of 2024, is hereby quashed and set aside.

13. In view thereof, the instant appea