1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 10 of 2025 ------ Samad Nagesiya @ Samat Nagesiya son of Karamchand Nagesiya, R/o Village Onegara Ichuwatanr, P.O. Peshrar, P.S. Peshrar, District Lohardaga .... .... …. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Appellant : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, Spl. P.P. ------ Order No.07 / Dated : 25.03.2025 1. The instant appeal, filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 17.08.2024 passed in M.C.A. No. 386 of 2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Lohardaga in connection with S.T. No. 49 of 2024 arising out of Serengdag P. S. Case No. 03 of 2023, registered under Sections 341, 323, 325, 307, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Lohardaga, wherein the prayer for regular bail of the appellant, has been rejected. 2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that that the appellant has not been apprehended from the spot, rather he has been remanded from another case to the present one on the basis of the confessional statement made by one Sukhlal Nagesia. 3. It has further been contended that said Sukhlal Nagesia has been allowed to be released on bail vide order dated 06.08.2024 passed in B.A. No. 6152 of 2024. It has been submitted that the other co-accused namely, Ashik @ Gudu Ansari @ Asif Ansari, has also been enlarged on bail vide order dated 11.10.2023 passed in B.A. No. 7022 of 2023. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid, ground of parity is being taken but the charge- sheet has been submitted in the present case under Section 25(1-AA) of the Arms Act and as such, looking insertion of the schedule offence, the present appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 17.08.2024 under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, but according to learned counsel for the appellant, there is no recovery, as per the materials 2 available on record, from the conscious possession of the appellant, since the appellant has not been apprehended on the spot and as such, there is no question of recovery from his physical or conscious possession, since he has been remanded in the present case from another case. 5. It has further been contended that merely for the purpose of making the case grievous, charge-sheet has been submitted under Section 25(1-AA) of the Arms Act. 6. Learned counsel has submitted that since the accused person, on whose confession his implication is based in the present case, has been directed to be released on bail and as such, the impugned order needs to be interfered with. 7. While on the other hand, Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. 8. It has been contended that the appellant has committed serious nature of crime and his name has come in the present case on the basis of the confession made by Sukhlal Nagesia. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding recorded by the learned trial Court in the impugned order dated 17.08.2024. 10. The argument solely is based upon the applicability of the principle of parity with the accused namely, Sukhlal Nagesia, on the basis of whose confession, the appellant has been remanded in the present case. 11. We have considered the order granting bail in favour of Sukhlal Nagesia dated 06.08.2024 passed in B.A. No. 6152 of 2024. Sukhlal Nagesia is facing trial under Sections 341, 323, 325, 307, 504, 506/34 of IPC as also under Section 27 of the Arms Act but in course of investigation, as per the investigating agency, the material has come and, therefore, charge-sheet has been submitted also under Section 25(1-AA) of the Arms Act. Therefore, insertion of the schedule offence as per schedule to National Investigation Agency, the prayer for bail filed before the learned Special Judge has been rejected vide order dated 17.08.2024 and as such, the present appeal has been preferred under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act. 3 12. The question has been put to learned State counsel to clarify the position while going through the case diary that when the FIR is under Sections 341, 323, 325, 307, 504, 506/34 of IPC as also under Section 27 of the Arms Act in a situation where it is an admitted case of the prosecution that the appellant has not been apprehended on the spot, rather he has been remanded from another case, then what is the basis of submission of charge-sheet under Section 25(1-AA) of the Arms Act. 13. Learned State counsel has fairly submitted that there is no recovery from the physical or conscious possession of the present appellant, since he, during the relevant time, was in custody and on remand, he has been produced in the present case. 14. This Court, considering the aforesaid and also corroborating the aforesaid facts from the case diary after going through the same, has found the veracity in the same. 15. Said Sukhlal Nagesia, on whose confession the name of the present appellant has come up and his implication is based upon the recovery of arms from the place of occurrence from where Sukhlal Nagesia had been apprehended, has been directed to be released on bail vide order dated 06.08.2024 passed in B.A. No. 6152 of 2024 and as such, merely because the charge sheet has been submitted under the schedule offence i.e. under Section 25(1-AA) of the Arms Act appears to be without any evidence on the basis of the case diary. 16. Considering the aforesaid fact, this Court is of the view that applying the principle of parity, the impugned order needs to be interfered with. 17. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 17.08.2024 passed in M.C.A. No. 386 of 2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Lohardaga, is hereby, quashed and set aside. 18. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed. 19. In consequence thereof, the appellant, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Lohardaga in connection with S.T. No. 49 of 2024 arising out of Serengdag P. S. Case No. 03 of 2023, subject to the conditions that the appellant shall co-operate in 4 the trial. Since, the trial is going on and as per the report submitted by the learned trial court that the trial is likely to be concluded within two months, the appellant is directed to appear on each and every date before the trial court, failing which, the learned Court shall have liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law so that trial be not hindered and further that one of the bailors should be close relatives of the appellant, which is to be accompanied by affidavit justifying that such bailor is close relatives of the appellant. 20. It is made clear that any observation(s) made hereinabove is only for the purpose of consideration of bail having no bearing with the trial. 21. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit/AKT