Bail may be granted when an accused has served significant time in custody without trial progress, especially if co-accused face lesser sentences.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant appeal filed, under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 22.10.2024 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 2678 of 2024 by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VI, Ranchi in connection with Dhurwa P. S. Case No. 25 of 2007 (S) corresponding to G.R. No. 441 of 2007 converted to S.T.No. 170 of 2024, registered under Sections 419/420/489(a)(b)/120B of the Indian Penal Code; the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken mainly the ground that co-accused persons, namely Braj Mohan Mistry and Ibrahim Mian has also faced trial in connection with Dhurwa P.S. Case No. 25 of 2007 and after trial they were acquitted by the criminal court of competent jurisdiction vide order dated 10.01.2020 in S.T. No. 64(A)/2008. Furthermore, other co-accused persons, namely Binod Kumar Sahu, Rajendra Pd. Sao, Mohsin Mumtaz, Kishore Kumar, Ainul Ansari, Chandrika Pd. Gupta, Md. Anwar, Bhola Ansar @ Kalim Ansari, Anish Ansari and Sadhan Kumar Mandal also faced trial in connection with Dhurwa P.S. Case No. 25 of 2007 corresponding to G.R. No. 441 of 2007 converted to S.T. No. 64(A) of 2008 were convicted with maximum punishment of three years.

3. Submission has been made that though earlier the prayer for bail of the appellant was rejected by this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1818 of 2023 vide order dated 21.02.2024 but on the ground that the appellant is in judicial custody since 28.03.2023 and about two years he remained in jail i.e., half of custody undergone by the co-accused persons, who has been convicted and even some of the co- convicts have been acquitted from the charges leveled against them.

4. Further submission has been made out of the eight charge-sheeted witnesses only one witness has been examined till date so there is no likelihood of even completion of trial in near future.

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 bail, however, he is fair enough to submit that co-accused has been convicted maximum sentence of three years and the appellant has undergone more than half of the custody.

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

8. This Court primarily considering the fact that co-accused persons, after facing the trial, has been convicted maximum sentence of three years for the offence under section 489B IPC and the appellant has also been implicated in this case for the same offence and is languishing in jail custody for about two years and further till date only one witness has been examined, as such there is no likelihood of completion of trial in near future.

9. This Court, therefore, applying the principle as laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb [(2021) 3 SCC 713] , is of the view that the impugned order requires interference.

10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22.10.2024 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 2678 of 2024, is hereby quashed and set aside.

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

12. In consequence thereof, the appellant, above named, is 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 Additional Judicial Commissioner-VI, Ranchi in connection with Dhurwa P. S. Case No. 25 of 2007 (S) correspond