The court ruled that prior criminal history and confessions regarding involvement in serious offenses justify the denial of bail, prioritizing public safety and ongoing investigations.

ORDER :

1. The instant appeal filed under Section 21 (4) of the NATIONAL INVESTIGATION ACT is directed against the order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the Sri. Shambhu Lal Shaw, learned Sessions Judge in M.C.A No. 1184 of 2024 by which the prayer for grant of bail of the appellant in connection with Piparwar P.S. Case no. 06/2024 registered under Sections 25(1-A)/25 (1-B)a/26/35 of ARMS ACT , under Section 17 (i)(ii) of CLA Act and under Section 16 /17/18/20 of U.A.P. Act, has been rejected.

2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the name of the present appellant has only been surfaced in the instant case on the basis of the confessional statement made by the co-accused.

3. It has been submitted that from very possession of the present appellant nothing incriminating has been recovered and further the appellant has not been arrested on the spot and he is in custody since 29.04.2024.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that since the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the learned special court and therefore the instant appeal has been preferred.

5. While on the other hand, Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned A.P.P. appearing for the respondent State has vehemently opposed the prayer to interfere with the impugned order.

6. It has come in course of investigation as has been recorded in the case diary that the appellant has confessed his guilt before the police which would be evident from the paragraph 6 of the supplementary case diary.

7. It has been contended that the informant upon his restatement at paragraph-7 as well as, witnesses at Para 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 of the case diary have also supported the prosecution case.

8. The learned A.P.P has also taken the ground of the criminal antecedent against the appellant and submitted that eight (08) criminal cases are pending against the appellant as such it is not a fit case to interfere with the impugned order.

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by the learned court below in the impugned order as well the case diary.

10. It is evident from the material available on record that the present appellant on basis of the allegation that being a member of the proscribed Organization (T.S.P.C) has been remanded in the present case on 29.04.2024 and since then he is in judicial custody.

11. It has further come in the case diary that the present appellant in his confessional statement has himself accepted that he being the member of extremist organisation namely T.S.P.C. has involved in the extortion and collecting levy from the businessmen across the state.

12. Further, the appellant having long list of pending criminal cases against him which would be evident from Annexure-A of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the state. The said Criminal Antecedent Report dated 27.01.2025 has been produced by Superintendent of Police, Chatra and the sanction has already been accorded as required under Section 45(1)(ii) of U.A.P Act, 1967.

13. On the basis of discussion made herein above and considering the list of criminal cases pending against the present appellant as also the material collected in course of investigation, this Court is of the considered view that the instant appeal is not fit to be allowed.

14. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed.