The court ruled that an applicant for bail must show a prima facie case for the privilege of pre-arrest bail, particularly in contexts lacking incriminating evidence against them.

JUDGMENT :

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1081 of 2024

1. The instant appeal filed under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigating Agency Act, 2008 is directed the order dated 23.07.2024 passed in Anticipatory Bail Petition No. 244 of 2024 by learned Principal District & Sessions Judge at Seraikella in connection with Nimdih P.S. Case No. 0019 of 2024 registered under Sections 4 /5 of the Explosive Substance Act and under Sections 25(1-B)(a)/26 of the ARMS ACT , pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella, whereby and whereunder the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant has been rejected.

2. It has been contended on behalf of appellant that it is a case where the order impugned needs to be interfered with reason being that save and except the confessional statement of the co-accused, namely, Basudev Mahato, there is no incriminating material or any overt act has been said to be there even if entire prosecution will be taken into consideration in entirety.

3. It has further been submitted that charge-sheet has already been submitted with respect to the co-accused person, namely, Basudev Mahato and charge has been framed against the co-accused but no nexus has been shown of the present appellant save and except the confessional statement of the co-accused.

4. It has further been submitted that even search has been done in the house of the appellant but no incriminating article has been found attracting offence under Section 4 /5 of the Explosive Substance Act or ARMS ACT .

5. Further submission has been made that the appellant is having mining lease issued by the Government of Jharkhand, under the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, as would be evident from annexure 1 to the supplementary affidavit.

6. So far as the criminal antecedents, which are two in number, are concerned submission has been made that first one pertains to offences related to Indian Penal Code and Disaster Management Act; and second criminal antecedent is bailable in nature and in both of the cases the appellant is on bail.

7. Argument has been advanced by referring to the impugned order wherein there is no consideration of the plea having been taken by learned counsel for the appellant seeking privilege of pre-arrest bail before the learned court and hence, according to learned counsel for the appellant the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law, and as such the privilege of bail in apprehension of arrest is to be granted.

8. While on the other hand, Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, learned A.P.P. appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer for pre-arrest bail by defending the impugned order.

9. Learned A.P.P submits by referring to paragraph 6 of the case diary where co-accused Basudev Mahato has disclosed the culpability of the present appellant and as such submission has been made that it is incorrect on the part of the appellant to take the ground that no overt act said to be committed by the appellant. Therefore, submission has been made that in that view of the matter, the prayer for appellant of pre-arrest bail has been rejected, as such the impugned order may not be interfered with.

10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone acro