The court emphasized the principle of parity in bail decisions, allowing bail for the appellant due to prolonged custody and similarity to co-accused cases.

ORDER :

1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act , 2008 against the order dated 22.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Simdega in Misc. Cri. Application No.248 of 2024 whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with Sessions Trial Case No.69/2023 arising out of T.Tanger P.S. Case No.7 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No.230 of 2023, registered for the offence under Sections 363, 370(4), 341, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 75/81 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act , has been rejected.

2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that two identically placed accused persons, namely, Sunila Dungdung and Priska Soreng @ Prisca Soreng have been directed to be released on bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.05.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.263 of 2024 and order dated 13.05.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.54 of 2024 respectively.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant of Cr. Appeal (DB) No.54 of 2024 has been allowed to be released on bail on the ground of custody as also on the ground that the informant, who has been examined as PW-2, has not supported the case of the prosecution.

4. The contention has been raised that the trial is lingering since after the examination of the Investigating Officer, again summon has been issued to one another witness, namely, Gloriyas Kerketta, which shows that the prosecution in one way of the other wants no early conclusion of the trial even though the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 22.02.2023.

5. Learned counsel based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the allegation against the appellant as per the F.I.R. is identical to that of Sunila Dungdung and Priska Soreng @ Prisca Soreng who have already been directed to be released on bail and, as such, it is a fit case where the impugned order may be interfered with so that the appellant may be released from the judicial custody.

6. While on the other hand, Mr. Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State, has vehemently opposed the prayer to show interference with the impugned order.

7. However, learned State counsel is fair enough to admit the fact about the nature of involvement of co-accused, namely, Sunila Dungdung and Priska Soreng @ Prisca Soreng whose case has been said to be identical to that of the present appellant.

8. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties, gone across the material as recorded in the impugned order.

9. It appears that although the appellant had filed appeal on earlier occasion but the same was withdrawn and as has been submitted on behalf of the appellant, the said withdrawal was on the ground that the trial was at the verge of closure at that time but still the trial is pending.

10. This Court, in order to have the status report, has passed order on 12.12.2024 directing the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to explain as to what action has been taken against the police witnesses/police officers who did not turn up for adducing evidence.

11. It further appears from the order passed by this Court on 21.01.2025 which was passed when it was brought to the notice of this Court that even after examination of the I.O. the prosecution evidence has not been closed and the stage of the trial has not been changed and to that effect the explanation has been sought for also from the concerned court.

12. It appears from the report furnished by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I, Simdega wherein it has been reported that after discharge of the I.O. the summon has been issued against the remaining witness, i.e., only one chargesheeted witness, namely, Gloriyas Kerketta, S/o Late Edward Kerketta.

13. The main emphasis of argument as has been made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the case