A court may grant bail if the duration of custody is excessive, especially when co-accused are released, and substantial evidence supporting charges is lacking.

JUDGMENT :

I.A. No. 13861 of 2024

1. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that she does not intend to press the instant interlocutory application, which has been filed on behalf of the appellant for early hearing of the case.

2. Such submission has been made in presence of Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

3. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A. No.13861 of 2024 is dismissed as not pressed.

Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1538 of 2024

4. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dated 18.11.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Misc. Criminal Application No. 2330 of 2024 whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with S.T. Case No.329 of 2024 arising out of Bagbera P.S. Case No.191 of 2023 (corresponding to G.R. Case No.301 of 2024), registered for the offences under Section 380 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , later on Sections 411 , 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and120-B of the I.P.C. has been added, has been rejected.

5. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that earlier to the present appeal, the prayer for regular bail has been dealt with by this Court in B.A. No.3120 of 2024 which, however, was rejected vide order dated 09.05.2024 but while rejecting the bail application, the observation has been made that the rejection at this stage and with a further observation that the prayer for bail may be renewed after lapse of six months. The prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been renewed after the expiry of the period of six months, based upon the observation made by this Court vide order dated 09.05.2024 in B.A. No.3120 of 2024.

6. It has been contended, so far as the issue of merit is concerned that although the recovery of the amount is said to be there but the said recovered amount cannot be said to be counterfeit currency in absence of any report from the Forensic Science Laboratory.

7. It has been contended that the other co-accused persons have been directed to be released on bail and to that effect, the order has been appended in connection with the co-accused namely Inderjeet Singh @ Indrajit Singh vide order dated 30.09.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1157 of 2024. Another co-accused person namely Arvind Choundary has also been directed to be released on bail vide order dated 02.07.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.666 of 2024. The appellant has already remained in custody for about fourteen months. Charge-sheet has already been submitted.

8. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the impugned order, therefore, may be interfered with.

9. While on the other hand, Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State, has seriously opposed the prayer for regular bail while showing interference with the impugned order.

10. It has been contended that the nature of allegation is very much serious and as such it is not a case where the impugned order may be interfered with.

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

12. The fact about enlarging the co-accused persons namely Inderjeet Singh @ Indrajit Singh and Arvind Choudhary is the primary consideration for this Court to interfere with the impugned order as also taking into consideration the period of custody of fourteen months, charge-sheet has already been submitted and appellant has no criminal antecedent.

13. In view thereof, the order dated 18.11.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, East Singhbhum, J