The court emphasized that the lack of commitment and framing of charges, along with previous acquittal, justified granting bail.

ORDER :

1. The instant appeal filed underSection 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 , is directed against the order dated 08.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Palamau at Daltonganj, in B.P. No. 370 of 2024, by which the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with Haidarnagar P.S. Case No.52 of 2024, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 385, 387, 435, 427, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 17 of C.L.A. Act and Sections 10/13 ofUAPA Act, has been rejected.

2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case where the appellant has falsely been implicated merely over hearing the name of the appellant by the police personnel, who subsequently has been made informant to the present case. The appellant has been said to have the two criminal antecedents but, he has been acquitted in one case and in other case i.e. Hariharganj P.S. Case No.37 of 2019 is concerned, the appellant has already been directed to be released on bail vide order dated 20.08.2020 passed in B.A No.5099 of 2020.

3. So far as the status of the present case is concerned, it has not been committed yet and thereof, the charge has not been framed while the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since, 29.06.2024.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant based upon the aforesaid grounds has submitted that it is a fit case to interfere with the impugned order.

5. While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer to interfere with the impugned order and has contended by referring to the material available in the case diary wherein the material has been surfaced in course of investigation. The ground of two antecedents have also been taken. The implication of the present appellant based upon the over hearing the name of the appellant has also been taken as a ground. The learned State Counsel based upon the aforesaid grounds has submitted that it is therefore not a fit case to interfere with the impugned order.

6. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the findings recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned order as also material as collected in course of the investigation as available in the case diary.

7. The fact about the implication of the present appellant is based upon over hearing the name of the present appellant by the police personnel who subsequently have become informant. It is further evident from the fact that the case is at the stage of commitment and even the charge has not been framed. The appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 29.06.2024.

8. The two criminal antecedents have been taken as a ground but as per the learned counsel for the appellant in one of the criminal cases, the appellant has been acquitted while in another case i.e. Hariharganj P.S. Case No.37 of 2019 he has been directed to be released on bail vide order dated 20.08.2020 passed by the learned single Judge in B.A. No.5099 of 2020.

9. This Court considering the aforesaid facts, is of view that the impugned order needs to be interfered with.

10. Accordingly, the order dated 08.08.2024 passed in B.P. No. 370 of 2024 in connection with Haidarnagar P.S. Case No.52 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.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Haidarnagar P.S. Case No.52 of 2024 subject to the condition that the appellant will cooperate in the trial and shall appear on each and every date before the learned trial court, failing which, the learned trial court is at liberty to take appropriate course in accordance with law.

13. Accordingly, the instant appeal stan