The court held that the appellant, having no criminal history and being in custody since July 2024, is entitled to bail, especially as the victims were recovered from a co-accused who was granted bail.

ORDER :

I.A. (Cr.) No. 1216 of 2025

1. The instant Interlocutory Application has been filed condonation of delay of 27 days in filing the appeal.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. In view of the reasons assigned in the application, the delay in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned.

4. Accordingly, Interlocutory Application, being I.A. No. 1216 of 2025, stands disposed of.

Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 167 of 2025

5. The instant appeal filed, under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 08.08.2024 passed in B.P. No.433 of 2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih in connection with Hirodih P. S. Case No. 84 of 2021, registered under Sections 370 , 371, 374/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE ; and Section 79 of the Juvenile Justice Act, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Giridh, the prayer for regular bail of the appellant, has been rejected.

6. It has been contended on behalf of appellant that the victims have not been recovered from the possession of the present appeal rather the victims have been recovered from the possession of one Vikash Rai @ Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Kumar Rai who has been granted bail vide order dated 26.04.2022 in B.A. No. 3491 of 2022 and the case of the appellant stands on better footing.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the victims have been recovered. The appellant has no criminal antecedent.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the appellant has surrendered in this case on 18.07.2024 and since then is in judicial custody and further charge-sheet has been submitted in this case.

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

10. While on the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, however, he has not disputed the fact that co-accused person has been directed to be released on bail by this Court.

11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by the learned court in the impugned order as also the order dated 26.04.2022 passed in B.A. No. 3491 of 2022 by which the co-accused has been granted bail.

12. Allegation against the appellant is that he along with one Vikash Rai @ Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Kumar Rai was sending the victims to Delhi for job. But on the way in Hirodih, Giridih said Vikash Rai @ Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Kumar Rai was caught with the victim girls. However, the appellant was found on the spot from where the victim girls were recovered.

13. Furthermore, the said Vikash Rai @ Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Kumar Rai has been granted bail vide order dated 26.04.2022 in B.A. No. 3491 of 2022.

14. The appellant is in judicial custody since 18.07.2024. Further, the appellant has no criminal antecedent and in this case charge-sheet has been submitted.

15. In view thereof, the impugned order requires interference by this Court.

16. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 08.08.2024 passed in B.P. No.433 of 2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih in connection with Hirodih P. S. Case No. 84 of 2021, is hereby quashed and set aside.

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

18. 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 Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Giridih in connection with Hirodih P. S. Case No. 84 of