The absence of evidence, such as recovery of explosives, and prolonged custody are critical factors for granting bail under serious charges.

ORDER :

1. The instant appeal filed, under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 , is directed against the order dated 19.11.2024 passed in B.P. No. 300 of 2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Pakur in connection with Pakur (Town) P. S. Case No. 176 of 2024, registered under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 118(2) of the BNS and 27 of the Arms act and under Section 3,4 of the Explosive Substance Act , pending in the Court of SDJM, Pakur, whereby and whereunder 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 on the basis of omnibus and general allegation, the appellants have been implicated in this case. Even the appellant nos. 2 to 5 are not named in the FIR and were not present at the place of occurrence.

3. Submission has been made although the case has been registered under Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act also but there is no recovery of any explosive substance so as to attract the penal offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act .

4. It has been submitted that the present case has been lodged in retaliation to another case and as such, the same ought to have been taken into consideration by the learned court while appreciating the prayer for bail of the appellants.

5. Further submission has been made that the appellant no. 1 is in jail since 26.07.2024 and appellants no. 2 to 5 are in jail since 28.08.2024.

6. Therefore, submission has been made by learned counsel for the appellants 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 by showing no interference with the impugned order.

8. It has been contended that there is specific allegation against all the appellants causing injury to the informant side, which would be evident from the injury report, as such, it is not a case where the impugned order requires interference.

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

10. The fact about recovery said to be there attracting the offence committed by the present appellants under 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act , but we after going through the case diary, has found that there is no recovery of any explosive substance from the physical or conscious possession of the appellant.

11. Furthermore, the appellant no. 1 is in jail since 26.07.2024 and appellants no. 2 to 5 are in jail since 28.08.2024. In the case at hand, as per submission made by learned counsel for the appellants at Bar, the charges have already been framed.

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

13. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.11.2024 passed in B.P. No. 300 of 2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Pakur in connection with Pakur (Town) P. S. Case No. 176 of 2024, is hereby quashed and set aside.

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

15. In consequence thereof, the appellants, above named, are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned SDJM, Pakur in connection with Pakur (Town) P. S. Case No. 176 of 2024, subject to the conditions that the appellants shall co-operate in the trial and shall not absent themselves on the date fixed without any cogent cause; and shall not commit offence of the like nature. In failure, the learned court shall have liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law so that trial be not hindered and further that one of the bailors should be close relative of the appellants, which is to be accompanied by affidavit justifying that such bailor is close relative of the appellant.

16. It is made clear that any observation(s) made here