The court established that mere confessional statements from co-accused, without direct evidence, may not suffice to deny bail, especially when similar co-accused have been granted bail under analogous circumstances.

ORDER :

1. Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned APP appearing for the State has sought for permission of this Court to file counter affidavit in the Court.

2. Permission, as sought for, is allowed.

3. The instant appeal filed, under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 02.12.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, IV, Chatra in Misc. Cr. Application No. 1571 of 2024, whereby the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected in connection with Rajpur P. S. Case No. 94 of 2019 corresponding to S.T. Case No. 421 of 2024, registered under Section 124(A) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 17 of the CLA Act, however, cognizance has been taken under Section 124 A of the IPC and Section 17(1)(2) of the CLA Act.

4. It has been contended on behalf of appellant that the one Satish Chandra Bharti was apprehended by the police, from whose possession the incriminating articles were recovered, and on whose confessional statement the name of the present appellant and others has surfaced. On the basis of confessional statement of co-accused, Satish Chandra Bharti, it has come that the appellant used to help the extremists but there is no material to suggest that the appellant had helped the extremist organization.

5. Further submission has been made that said co- accused, Satish Chandra Bharti, on whose confession, the name of the appellant has surfaced has been granted bail vide order dated 20.01.2023 in B.A. No. 256 of 2020. Further, other co-accused persons have also been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 20.02.2024 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1875 of 2023. Other co-accused persons, namely, Roushan Turi, Almuddin Miyan @ Allaudin Miyan and Mukesh Yadav @ Mukesh Kumar Yadav has been granted bail vide order dated 15.06.2020; 18.08.2020 and 08.02.2021 in B.A. No. 2872 of 2020, B.A. No. 3877 of 2020 and B.A. No. 504 of 2021 respectively.

6. Furthermore, the appellant is in judicial custody since 14.08.2023.

7. Therefore, submission has been made by learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order may be quashed and set aside.

8. While on the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute the fact that other co-accused persons have been granted bail, however, submitted that present appellant has altogether eight criminal antecedents.

9. In response, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1875 of 2023, who has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 20.02.2024, has also two criminal antecedents.

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

11. This Court, on consideration of submission advanced on behalf of the parties, has found that the name of the appellant has come on the basis of confessional statement of Satish Chandra Bharti, who has been granted bail vide order dated 20.01.2023 in B.A. No. 256 of 2020. Furthermore, other co-accused persons have also been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 20.02.2024 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1875 of 2023. Other co-accused persons, namely, Roushan Turi, Almuddin MIyan @ Allaudin Miyan and Mukesh Yadav @ Mukesh Kumar Yadav has been granted bail vide order dated 15.06.2020; 18.08.2020 and 08.02.2021 in B.A. No. 2872 of 2020, B.A. No. 3877 of 2020 and B.A. No. 504 of 2021 respectively.

12. The appellant, Sanjay Yadav @ Sanjay Kumar Yadav who was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 20.02.2024 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1875 of 2023 was also having two criminal antece