The court ruled that the denial of bail was unjustified as similar co-accused were granted bail or acquitted, necessitating similar treatment for the appellant.

ORDER :

1. The instant appeal filed, under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act , 2008, is directed against the order dated 01.02.2025 passed in Misc. Cr. Application No. 211 of 2025 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chatra in connection with Pratappur P. S. Case No. 68 of 2009 corresponding to G.R. No. 993 of 2009, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149 , 307 of the Indian Penal Code ; Sectin 17(i) (ii) CLA Act ; Section 27 of the Arms act; Section 3/4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act and section 10/13 of the UAP Act ; whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant, has been rejected.

2. It has been contended on behalf of appellant that the appellant is the Assistant Teacher since 2006 having no concerned with the extremist group and has voluntarily surrendered before the trial Court on 24.01.2025 and since then he is languishing in judicial custody.

3. Further, in the FIR, there is no specific allegation of firing which can be attributed against the appellant and no incriminating article has been recovered from the conscious possession of the appellant.

4. Furthermore, the other co-accused persons, namely, Arbind Paswan had been granted bail in B.A. No. 2552/2010; Binod Paswan @ Baban Paswan had been granted bail by the in B.A. No 184/2013 vide order dated 12.03.2013, Madan Bhuiyan @ Basudeo Bhuiyan has been granted bail by this Court in B.A. No. 1978/2014 vide order dated 27.03.2014, Naresh Bhuiyan @Naresh Bharti has been granted bail by this Court in B.A. No. 4994 of 2015 vide order dated 11.08.2015 and Maheshi Yadav @ Raghubansh Jee has been granted bail by the Hon’ble Court in B.A. No. 1753 of 2017 vide order dated 09.03.2017.

5. The co-accused namely, co-accused Naresh Bhuiyan @Naresh Bharti @ Niranjan has been acquitted vide judgment dated 05th March, 2015 passed in in Sessions Trial Case No. 86 of 2015. Whereas, Baban Paswan @ Mukdar Ji @ Binod Paswan and Madan Ji @ Madan Bhuiyan have been acquitted vide judgment dated 06th December, 2017 passed in Sessions Trial Case No. 253 of 2012/Sessions Trial Case No.39/2013 by the Trail Court.

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

7. While on the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, however, he does not dispute the fact that other co-accused persons have been granted bail and some co-accused persons have been acquitted of the charges leveled against them.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by the learned court in the impugned order as the order granting bail to the co-accused persons.

9. Admittedly, the other co-accused persons namely, Arbind Paswan had been granted bail in B.A. No. 2552/2010; Binod Paswan @ Baban Paswan had been granted bail by the in B.A. No 184/2013 vide order dated 12.03.2013, Madan Bhuiyan @ Basudeo Bhuiyan has been granted bail by this Court in B.A. No. 1978/2014 vide order dated 27.03.2014, Naresh Bhuiyan @Naresh Bharti has been granted bail by this Court in B.A. No. 4994 of 2015 vide order dated 11.08.2015 and Maheshi Yadav @ Raghubansh Jee has been granted bail by the Hon’ble Court in B.A. No. 1753 of 2017 vide order dated 09.03.2017, therefore, there is no reason to take distinct view, so far as the case of the present appellant is concerned.

10. Furthermore, some of the co-accused persons have been acquitted of the charges leveled against them, as would be evident from Annexure 3 and 3/1 to the memo of appeal.

11. In view thereof, the impugned order requires interference by this Court.

12. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 01.02.2025 passed in Misc. Cr. Application No. 211 of 2025 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chatra in connection with Pratappur P. S. Case No. 68 of 2009 corresponding to G.R. No. 993 of 2009, is hereby quashed and set aside.

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

14. In consequenc