AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The instant appeal has been filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dated 21.08.2024 passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-III, Khunti in M.C.A. No.257 of 2024 whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with S.T. Case No.11 of 2024 arising out of Arki P.S. Case No.01 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. Case No.214 of 2021(B), registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 333, 353 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, under Sections 25(1-AA), 25(1-B)(a), 25(6), 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act, has been rejected.
It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the case has been instituted under several Sections including under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1-AA) of the Arms Act but from the perusal of the First Information Report and even the discussion so made in the order impugned, it would be evident that nobody has sustained injury as also there is no recovery of any sophisticated weapon from the conscious passion of the present appellant and, as such, no ingredients of Section 307 of I.P.C. and Section 25(1-AA) of the Arms Act is available.
It has further been submitted that the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 20.06.2024 and as yet, as per the impugned order, no witness has been examined out of 17 chargesheeted witnesses, therefore, the impugned order needs to be interfered with.
While on the other hand, Mrs. Shweta Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State, has vehemently opposed the prayer to interfere with the impugned order.
It has been submitted that the appellant is having one criminal antecedent and he has been remanded from another case to the present one on 20.06.2024.
She has submitted that the learned court by taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, if has rejected the prayer for bail, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error.
Learned State counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the impugned order may not be interfered with.
This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties, gone across the finding recorded by the learned court in the impugned order as also the material available in the case diary having been taken note in course of investigation by the Investigating Officer.
The case has been instituted under various Sections including Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Prima Facie we have not found any cogent material attracting the ingredients of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code as per the material available on record.
The case has also been instituted under Section 25(1-AA) of the Arms Act but it has also not been found from the case diary that any sophisticated weapon or any weapon of any nature has been recovered from the conscious possession of the present appellant.
The appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 20.06.2024. The charge has already been framed on 08.08.2024 but as would appear from the impugned order that the witnesses have not yet been started to be examined.
This Court, considering the aforesaid fact, is of the view that the impugned order needs to be interfered with.
Accordingly order dated 21.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Khunti in M.C.A. No.257 of 2024, is hereby quashed and set aside.
In consequence thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.
Accordingly, 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 learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-III, Khunti, in connection with S.T. Case No.11 of 2024 arising out of Arki P.S. Case No.01 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. Case No.214 of 2021(B), subject to the conditions that the appellant shall co-operate in the trial and shall not absent himself on the date fixed without any cogent cause. Subject to further condition that one of the bailors should be the father/near relative of the appellant. In failure, the learned trial court shall have liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law so that trial be not hindered.
The instant criminal appeal stands disposed of.