The absence of evidence linking the appellant to the crime justifies the granting of bail, emphasizing the need for substantial proof in bail matters.

JUDGMENT :

1.On affidavit, leave has been sought to accept the affidavit.

2. Leave is granted.

3. Let the affidavit be taken on record.

4. Office is directed to do the needful.

5. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dated 04.09.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dhanbad in Bail Petition No.596 of 2024 whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with Madhuban P.S. Case No.63 of 2024, registered for the offences under Section 109/3(5) of the B.N.S., Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act, has been rejected.

6. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has committed no offence and he has falsely been implicated in the instant case only in order to harassing.

7. It has been submitted that there is no recovery of any explosive substance from the physical or conscious possession of the present appellant, rather, the remains of the exploded bomb recovered from the balcony of the house of the informant which has been said to be exploded by the present appellant but to that effect there is no evidence.

8. Learned counsel has further submitted that the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 28.07.2024. Altogether 08 witnesses have to be examined but yet none of the witnesses have been examined.

9. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that it is, therefore, fit case to interfere with the impugned order.

10. While on the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State and the informant have jointly opposed the prayer for bail.

11. It has been submitted that against the appellant, altogether 16 criminal cases are pending and as such, it is not the case where the impugned order needs to be interfered with.

12. Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in response to the issue of 16 criminal cases shown to be pending has submitted by referring to the paragraph 4 of the affidavit dated 03.03.2025, wherein it has been stated that out of 16 criminal antecedents, the appellant has been acquitted in 6 cases, in 03 cases F.R.T. has been submitted and appellant has not been sent up for trial in rest 07 cases, the appellant is on bail.

13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding recorded by the learned court in the impugned order as also the case diary.

14. The ground of no recovery from the possession of the present appellant with respect to the explosive substance is not in dispute, since, we have not found any material having been in the case diary said to be recovery from physical or conscious possession of the present appellant rather, it is the admitted case of the prosecution that the remains of exploded bomb from the balcony of the house of the informant has been found. There is no evidence to connect the culpability of exploding the bomb upon the appellant save and except the confessional statement of the appellant, which has been recorded by the police. The learned trial court has taken the ground of criminal antecedents.

15. We have considered the stand taken on that issue and found that out of 16 cases, in 06 cases, the appellant has been acquitted and in remaining 3 cases, the F.R.T. has been submitted in favour of the present appellant, while in 07 more cases, the appellant is on bail. The appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 28.07.2024 and out of 8 witnesses, none of the witnesses have been examined, as per the status report which has been called for vide order dated 29.01.2025.

16. Considering the same, this Court is of the view that the impugned order needs to be interfered with.

17. In view thereof, the order dated 04.09.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dhanbad in Bail Petition No.596 of 2024, is hereby quashed and set aside.

18. In consequence thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.

19. Accordingly, the appel