2025:JHHC:10856-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.968 of 2024 ----- Birsa Khandait, aged about 30 years, Son of Gonde Khandait, Resident of Village-Dindapai, P.O. and P.S.- Sonua, District-Singhbhum West (Jharkhand). … … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent ------- CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ------- For the Appellant : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Gupta, Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P. ------ Order No. 10/Dated 8th April, 2025 1. The instant appeal under section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 has been directed against the order dated 28.05.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Singhbhum West at Chaibasa in Bail Petition No.110 of 2024 whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail of the appellant in connection with Goilkera P.S. Case No.15 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 25(1-A), 25(1-AA) and 26(3) read with Section 35 of the Arms Act and under Section 17 of C.L.A. Act, has been rejected. 2. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the appellant is in judicial custody since 20.04.2024 merely for the reason that magazines of AK-47 rifle has been 2025:JHHC:10856-DB 2 recovered from the conscious possession of the present appellant. 3. It has been submitted that although trial is going on but it is at a slow pace and, as such, by taking into consideration the period of custody the appellant may be enlarged on bail by interfering with the impugned order. 4. While on the other hand, Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel appearing for the State, has vehemently opposed the prayer to interfere with the impugned order. 5. It has been contended that the appellant is a member of P.L.F.I. extremist organization which is a banned organization in the State of Jharkhand and live cartridges of AK-47 have been recovered from the physical possession of the appellant along with co-accused from whose possession AK-47 has been recovered. 6. It has further been contended that so far as the issue of trial is concerned, out of total five witnesses, two witnesses have already been examined. 7. She has submitted that all sincere endeavour will be taken to produce the remaining witnesses so that the trial be expedited, but taking into consideration the nature of allegation and the appellant being the member of P.L.F.I. extremist organization, it is not a case where the impugned order needs to be interfered with. 2025:JHHC:10856-DB 3 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding recorded by the learned court in the impugned order. 9. The fact about recovery of magazine containing live cartridges in large quantity from the conscious possession of the appellant is available on record as per paragraph-6, 7, 8 and 9 of the case diary which contains the statement recorded of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 10. It has also come at paragraph 28 of the case diary that after examination of both arms and ammunition, it was found that these are prohibited arms and ammunition. 11. The appellant is having criminal antecedent being Gudri P.S. Case No.10 of 2020. 12. We have called for the status report of the case which has been received vide communication dated 21.02.2025 wherefrom it is evident that five chargesheeted witnesses are there out of which two witnesses have been examined. 13. This Court, taking into consideration the undertaking so furnished by the learned State counsel that the remaining three witnesses will be examined for the purpose of conclusion of the trial, is of the view that in view of nature of allegation against the appellant and the antecedent, the order impugned needs no interference. 2025:JHHC:10856-DB 4 14. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 28.05.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Singhbhum West at Chaibasa in Bail Petition No.110 of 2024 in connection with Goilkera P.S. Case No.15 of 2024. 15. Accordingly, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed 16. However, in view of the undertaking furnished by the learned counsel for the State to produce the witnesses to conclude the trial, this Court is of the view that the witnesses be produced so that the trial be concluded at an early date. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Birendra/