Bail considerations must include the duration of custody and the number of witnesses examined, especially when co-accused are granted bail under similar circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant appeal filed, under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 , is directed against the order dated 04.07.2024 passed in M.C.A No. 730 of 2024 arising out S.T. No. 217 of 2023 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Chaibasa, registered under Sections 302/34 , 120B IPC ; 27/25((1-a),25(1-B)A/26,35 of the Arms Act and 3/4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act ; pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Chaibasa, the prayer for regular bail of the appellant, has been rejected.

2. It has been contended on behalf of appellant that it is a case where the bail application of the present appellant has been rejected on earlier occasion but subsequent thereto, the appellant has remained in jail custody for about 1 and 1/2 years and still the substantial number of witnesses are to be examined since out of 32 witnesses only 02 witnesses have been examined as yet. It has been submitted that although consideration has been given on merit but the implication of the present appellant is based upon 3^rd confessional statement given by Satyavan Pradhan and no recovery of any incriminating material said to be used in the commission of crime is there.

3. Further submission has been made that co-accused, namely, Md. Hasim has been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.06.2024 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 72 of 2024 and another co-accused, namely, Md. Mukhtar @ Mukhtar Khan @ Babu has been granted bail by Hon’ble Apex Court in Cr. Appeal No. 5449 of 2024 vide order dated 18.12.2024 and the case of the appellant stands on better footing.

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

5. While on the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State as also learned counsel appearing for the informant have vehemently opposed to interfere with the impugned order.

6. It has been contended that although the implication of the present appellant is based upon the 3rd confessional statement but there is reason behind it since the said Satya Narayan Pradhan has not disclosed the things in one confessional statement rather whenever the confessional statement has been recorded and when he has been confronted then he has disclosed new things, and in that way in the 3^rd confessional statement the name of the appellant has been surfaced.

7. So far submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that co-accused, namely, Md. Hasim has been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.06.2024 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 72 of 2024 and another co-accused, namely, Md. Mukhtar @ Mukhtar Khan @ Babu has been granted bail by Hon’ble Apex Court in Cr. Appeal No. 5449 of 2024 vide order dated 18.12.2024, are concerned, their cases are on different footing to that of present appellant. Hence, no parity can be claimed by the appellant to that of co-accused persons, named above.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by the learned court in the impugned order as also considered the earlier order of rejection and the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench and the Hon’ble Apex Court by which co-accused persons have been granted bail.

9. Admittedly, the petitioner is in custody for more than one and half year. The charge-sheet has been submitted that trial has begun but out of 32 witnesses only two witnesses have been examined.

10. We, on consideration of the issue of parity, have found that the co-accused, namely, Md. Hasim has been directed to be released on bail by the co-ordinate Bench on the ground of period of custody as also the number of witnesses examined till that date and further the co-accused, namely, Md. Mukhtar @ Mukhtar Khan @ Babu has been directed to be released on by bail by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Cr. Appeal No. 5449 of 2024 vide order dated 18th December, 2024 on the ground of period of incarceration, is of the view tha