The court upheld the principle of parity in granting anticipatory bail, allowing the appellants bail based on their similar situation to co-accused who were previously granted bail.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant appeal, filed under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigating Agency Act, is directed against the order dated 07.01.2025 passed in A.B.P. No. 3771 of 2024 and order dated 15.01.2025 passed in A.B.P. No.114 of 2025 by learned Additional Sessions Judge VI, Dhanbad, in connection with Katras P.S. Case No. 236 of 2023 registered under Sections 147 , 148, 149, 323, 324, 326, 307, 353, 337, 338, 427 and 436 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE as also under Section 25(1-B)(a)/26/35 of the ARMS ACT and Section 3 /4 of the Explosive Substance Act, pending before the learned SDJM, Dhanabd, whereby and whereunder, the anticipatory bail of the appellants have been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that other co-accused persons, namely Rajeev Kumar Yadav @ Rajeev Yadav vide order dated 18.0-6.2024 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 3 of 2024; Janardhan Yadav vide order dated 20.02.2024 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 96 of 2024; Madhusudan Yadav and Manseshwar Yadav vide order dated 18.06.2024 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 106 of 2024; Md. Aftab Ansari and Md/ Shahanwaj Ansari vide order dated 19.03.2024 in Cr. Appeal(DB) No. 2162 of 2023; Subham Ansari and others vide order dated 17.01.2024 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1745 of 2023; Omkar Yadav vide order dated 05.12.2023 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1642 of 2023; Bablu Yadav vide order dated 05.12.2023 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1485 of 2023; Arshad Alam and others vide order dated 05.12.2023 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1430 of 2023; Md. Mudassar Nisar vide order dated 05.12.2023 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1431 of 2023; Md. Dara Ansari vide order dated 05.12.2023 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1442 of 2023; Bikash Kumar @ Bikash vide order dated 05.12.2023 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1491 of 2023, Ajay Kumar Bhuyain and others vide order dated 05.12.2023 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1589 of 2023 and Kartik Kumar @ Kartik Yadav vide order dated 10.12.2024 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1498 of 2024, have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court and case of the present appellant stands on similar footing.

3. The fact about the prayer for pre-arrest bail having been allowed by this Court with respect to so many co-accused persons, has not been disputed by the learned State Counsel.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by the learned Court in the impugned order.

5. This Court, in order to appreciate the argument regarding the principle of parity, has gone through the first information report and found therefrom that the attributability levelled against the present appellant is identically placed to that of other co- accused persons so as to allow the privilege of pre-arrest bail, as referred at paragraph-2 of the order dated 10.12.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1498 of 2024 ( Kartik Kumar @ Kartik Yadav Vrs. The State of Jharkhand ), therefore, there is no reason to take distinct view so far as the case of the present appellant is concerned.

6. This Court, considering the aforesaid fact as also considering the fact that no specific overt act has been levelled against the appellant, therefore, is of the view that the impugned orders require interference.

7. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 07.01.2025 and 15.01.2025 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge-VI, Dhanbad passed in A.B.P. No.3771 of 2024 (so far as it relates to appellant no.1) and A.B.P. No.114 of 2025 (so far as it relates to appellant nos.2 and 3), are hereby quashed and set aside.

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

9. In consequence thereof, the appellants, above named, are directed to surrender before the learned court below within a period of four weeks’ and on their surrender, they shall be rel