The mere existence of pending criminal cases cannot justify the denial of bail without considering the accused's specific involvement in the crime.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 10.07.2024 passed in B.P. No.508 of 2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III , Gumla, in connection with Sessions Trial (Spt.) Case No.06 of 2021, arising out of Gumla P.S. Case No.313 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. No.906 of 2013 registered under Sections 307, 326 and 34 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act, by which, the prayer for regular bail of the appellant, has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is not named in the FIR and no recovery said to be there either from the physical or conscious possession of the present appellant.

3. It has been submitted that the learned court when has got no material showing implication of the present appellant as per the prosecution version, even then, the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been rejected by citing instance of pending eight criminal cases against him.

4. It has been contended that in all criminal cases, the appellant has been released on bail and one case has been disposed of. While, in Kotwali P.S. Case No.90 of 2015, the appellant even not an accused but even then, said case is pending against him.

5. It has further been submitted that reference of Pakartanr P.S. Case No.04 of 2020 and Pakartanr P.S. Case No.10 of 2020 have also been made, in which, the appellant has not been remanded, then how can these two cases are said to be pending against the present appellant.

6. It has further been submitted that even though, the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 28.06.2024 but no witness has yet been examined.

7. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that it is, therefore, a fit case to interfere with the impugned order.

8. While on the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

9. It has been contended that the ground which has been taken by the learned court in rejecting the prayer for regular bail, is pending eight criminal cases. However, it has been submitted by referring to the averment made in the affidavit that altogether 13 cases are pending against the appellant including the present one and as such, he has been considered to be history-sheeter.

10. Learned State Counsel, based upon the aforesaid, has submitted that it is not a fit case where the impugned order needs to be interfered with.

11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding recorded by the learned court in the impugned order, as also, the case diary and the affidavit in-objection along with the reply filed on behalf of the appellant to that objection.

12. The ground of rejection of prayer for regular bail as has been shown by the learned court is eight pending criminal cases against the present appellant. However, it has come on record that there are 13 pending criminal cases against the appellant.

13. Reply has been filed on behalf of the appellant. In the said reply, the status/outcome of the pending 13 criminal cases have been shown, as would be evident from para-6 thereof, which reads as under:-

14. It would be evident therefrom that in Kotwali P.S. Case No.90 of 2015, the appellant has not arrayed as an accused. It also appears from serial no.12 and 13, wherein, reference of Pakartanr P