( 2025:JHHC:10436-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1464 of 2024 ---------- Rajdev Singh Bhokta @ Rajdev Ganjhu @ Jatha, Aged about 34 years, Son of Paimali Singh Bhokta @ Pemali Ganjhu, Resident of Village Henth Bairiyo, P.O.- Sadar, P.S.- Sadar, Dist. – Chatra, 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. P.K. Sahay, Advocate : Mr. D.K. Prasad, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, APP ---------------------------- ORAL ORDER 07/Dated: 3rd April, 2025 1. The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 11.09.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chatra in MCA No. 1247 of 2024 by which the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with Chatra Sadar P.S. Case no. 74 of 2024 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 120-B, 353, 307, 302, 504, 506, 323, 325, 324, 326, 333 of Indian Penal Code, under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act, under Section 17(i)(ii) of the CLA Act and under Sections 16, 18, 19, 20, 38 and 39 of UAP Act has been rejected. 2. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the appellant has not been arrested from the spot and have not named in the FIR rather the name of the appellant has been surfaced on the basis of the conversation amongst the ( 2025:JHHC:10436-DB ) extremist group which was heard by the police personnels. However, the recoveries were made on the basis of the confession of the appellant. 3. Further, the main argument on behalf of the learned counsel is that the appellant is in custody since 29.02.2024 and it has been contended that in the instant case, charge has not been framed due to want of sanction as required under Section 45 of the UAP Act, 1967. 4. Moreover, it has been contended that there are altogether 23 prosecution witnesses and the trial is yet to be commenced, therefore, a long period will be required in conclusion of the trial and as of now the appellant is in custody for more than a year. 5. It has further been contended that the identical placed person, namely, Pintu Bharti has been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12th February, 2025 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1054 of 2024. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the impugned order may be interfered with. 7. While on the other hand, Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State has vehemently opposed the prayer to interfere with the impugned order. ( 2025:JHHC:10436-DB ) 8. It has been contended that the allegation against the present appellant is serious in nature since he has been said to be the member of the extremist group and on the day of occurrence, two police personnels had been killed and several others got severe injuries. 9. Furthermore, the learned counsel has stated that there are altogether 6 criminal antecedents against the appellant which has also been annexed in the counter-affidavit. 10. Learned APP appearing for the respondent-State has further submitted that the case of the present appellant is not said to be identical to the Pintu Bharti, the appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1054 of 2024, since the name of the said Pintu Bharti has come on the basis of the confessional statement and the name of the present appellant has come on the basis of the conversation amongst the extremist group, having been heard by the police personnels on the day of occurrence. Therefore, the case of the appellant cannot be said to be identical in regard to the case of Pintu Bharti. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant, in response, so far as the issue of criminal antecedents is concerned, has submitted that in one case, i.e., in Chatra Sadar P.S. Case No. 60 of 2018, the appellant has been acquitted vide order dated 12.07.2024 but even then, the said case has been referred as criminal antecedent of the appellant. ( 2025:JHHC:10436-DB ) 12. The other cases, i.e., in Chatra Sadar P.S. Case No. 61 of 2018 arising out of S.T. case No. 384 of 2022, the appellant has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 01.10.2020 passed in BA No. 7181 of 2020, and further in Chatra Sadar P.S. Case No. 275 of 2021 arising out of NDPS Case No. 192 of 2025, the appellant has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 12.03.2025. It has further been submitted that in another Chatra Sadar P.S. Case No. 73 of 2024, no application has been filed by the appellant and the investigation in the said case is going on. Likewise, in Bashisthnagar P.S. Case No. 22 of 2024, the appellant has not filed any petition before any court. 13. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by the learned court in the impugned order and the averments made in the affidavit filed on behalf of the respective parties. 14. The cases have been instituted under various sections including sections attracting the penal offence under UAP Act, i.e., Sections 16, 18, 19, 20, 38 and 39 of UAP Act, 1967. 15. We have conscious that in case of UAP Act, the parameter of Section 43D(5) of the UAP Act, 1967 is required to be considered as has been settled by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, [(2019) 5 SCC 1], but the issue is also to be taken into consideration by taking note of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713 wherein on the ( 2025:JHHC:10436-DB ) basis of long incarceration of the accused has been taken into consideration in the light of principle enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the order of granting bail has not been interfered with. 16. Herein, the admitted fact is that as yet the sanction has not been accorded as required under Section 45 of the UAP Act, 1967 and due to want of the sanction, the charge has not been framed. 17. The appellant is languishing in custody since 29.02.2024 and even though there is no progress in the trial as per the status report, altogether 23 witnesses are to be examined. 18. The respondent-State has annexed the criminal antecedent of the appellant in the counter-affidavit wherefrom it is evident that there are altogether 6 cases against the appellant, however, in response of the same, the appellant has filed supplementary affidavit wherefrom it is evident that in one of the cases, he has been acquitted and as per the avernment made in the said supplementary affidavit, the appellant has been enlarged on bail in two other cases. 19. We have primarily considered that is it available for the State to take a ground to oppose the prayer for bail when the prosecution agency of the State itself has at fault by not according the sanction stipulated under Section 45 of UAP Act. 20. At this juncture, this Court has considered the purport of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as also taking into consideration the fact ( 2025:JHHC:10436-DB ) that one of the co-accused, namely, Pintu Bharti has been directed to be released on bail vide order dated 12th February, 2025. 21. However, it has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the State that the name of said Pintu Bharti has come on the basis of the confessional statement, while the name of the present appellant has been heard by the prosecuting agency from the conversation among extremists on the day of occurrence, but the fact remains same that the present appellant and Pintu Bharti, the appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1054 of 2024 has caught for commission of crime which is identical and that has also not been disputed by the State. 22. Considering the aforesaid submissions, this Court is of the view that the impugned order needs to be interfered with. 23. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed. 24. In consequence thereof, 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 the Learned Sessions Judge, Chatra in connection with Chatra Sadar P.S. Case no. 74 of 2024 subject to the condition that the appellant will cooperate in the trial and shall appear on each and every date before the learned trial court, failing which, the learned trial court is at liberty to take appropriate course in accordance with law and; further subject to the condition that one of the bailors should be the father of the appellant. ( 2025:JHHC:10436-DB ) 25. Further condition that if the appellant is found to be indulged in similar activities, the investigating agency is at liberty to make an application for cancellation of bail bond. 26. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) samarth