The court ruled that prior efforts to secure bail do not merit reconsideration when serious allegations and an ongoing investigation persist, and pre-arrest bail was denied.

ORDER :

1. The instant appeal filed, under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 30.11.2024 passed in A.B.P. No. 558 of 2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Madhupur (Deoghar) in connection with Madhupur P. S. Case No. 252 of 2023, registered under Sections 147/148/149/341/323/325/307/379 of the Indian Penal Code, 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act and 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the court of learned ACJM, Madhupur, whereby and whereunder the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants have been rejected.

2. It has been contended that earlier the appellants had preferred anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 986 of 2024, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 22.10.2024.

3. It has been contended on behalf of appellants that the appellants were neither apprehended at the place of occurrence nor any arms and ammunitions were recovered from the exclusive and conscious possession of the appellants.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted no charge-sheet has been submitted against the appellants. However, charge-sheet has been submitted against other accused wherein the police has mentioned that no case of Explosive Substance Act and Arms act is made out against that accused.

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

6. While on the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for pre-arrest bail and raised the issue of maintainability of the present appeal on the ground that earlier to present one, the appellant has approached to this Court by filing Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 986 of 2024, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 22.10.2024 and thereafter the second attempt has been taken by filing the present appeal.

7. So far merit of the case is concerned, it has been submitted that allegation against the appellants is serious in which custodial interrogation is required, and the investigation is going on against the appellants, as such it is not a case where the privilege of pre-arrest bail is required to be given.

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

9. Admittedly, the appellants have earlier moved before this Court by filing Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 986 of 2024, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 22.10.2024. The present appeal is by way of second attempt.

10. We, on consideration of nature of allegation and considering the fact that investigation is going on against the appellants, are of the view that it is not a fit case for consideration of case for giving privilege of pre-arrest bail.

11. In view thereof, the impugned order requires no interference by this Court.

12. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed.

13. It is made clear that any observation(s) made hereinabove is only for the purpose of consideration of pre-arrest having no bearing with the investigation/trial.

14. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of.