Bail can be denied based on sufficient witness corroboration and prior criminal history, despite not being named in the FIR.

ORDER :

1. The instant appeal under section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 has been directed against the order dated 04.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Latehar in Misc. Cr. Application No. 560 of 2024 whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with Baresarh P.S. Case No. 04 of 2017 corresponding to S.T. No. 91 of 2024 registered under Sections 147 , 148, 149, 307, 324, 325, 326, 353 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , Section 3 (a), 3(b), 4(a), 4(b) of Explosive Substance Act, Section 10 , 13, 16 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and Section 17 of CLA Act, has been rejected.

2. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the appellant is not named in the FIR, but he has been implicated.

3. It has further been contended that if the entire case diary will be taken into consideration, no imputation can be said to be committed by the appellant, but the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 05.09.2023 after surrender.

4. Based on the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that these aspects of the matter has not been considered by the learned Court while considering the prayer for bail and hence, the present appeal.

5. While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand has vehemently opposed the prayer for interfering with the impugned order.

6. It has been contended by referring to para-10, 11 and 13 of the case diary where the witnesses in their statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr. P.C. have fully supported the prosecution version, particularly the culpability said to be committed by the appellant.

7. It has further been contended by making reference of para-17, 18 and 19 of the case diary wherein independent witnesses have also supported the culpability said to be committed by the appellant.

8. It has been contended that it is a case where the witnesses in their statement recorded at para-10, 11, 13, 17, 18 and 19 of the case diary have stated that the appellant has been named in planting the IED explosive, which resulted into injuries to the four police personnel belonging to the CRPF.

9. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that the appellant is having three criminal antecedents of like nature and as such, it is not a fit case where the impugned order needs to be interfered with.

10. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties, gone across the impugned order rejecting the prayer for regular bail of the appellant as also the case diary.

11. This Court, in order to appreciate the argument advanced on behalf of the parties, has gone through the paragraph-10, 11, 13, 17, 18 and 19 of the case diary and found therefrom that the witnesses while recording their statements in the case diary have supported the complicity said to be committed by the appellant.

12. It is also available in the case diary that due to planting of the IED explosive, four police personnel belonging to the CRPF, a para military forces, have sustained serious injuries. The appellant is having three criminal antecedents of like nature.

13. This Court, considering the aforesaid fact, is of the view that if the learned Court has refused to enlarge the present appellant on bail, the same needs no interference in view of the fact that the parameter which is required to be considered under Section 43 (D) (5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 has been considered by the learned trial court.

14. This Court taking into consideration in the nature of allegation and also the crimina