1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1512 of 2024 ------- Rajkumar Vishwakarma, aged about 50 years, Son of Baudh Vishwakarma, Resident of Village Batto Kala, P.O. Parti, P.S. Ketar, District – Garhwa (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. Vikas Kumar, Adv. Mr. Suraj Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. V.S. Sahay, A.P.P. ------- Order No.05/Dated- 25.02.2025 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dated 20.11.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Nagar Untari, Garhwa in Bail Petition No.27 of 2024 whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with Ketar P.S. Case No.57 of 2024, registered for the offences under Sections 25(1-b)a/25(1-AA)/26/35 of the Arms Act, has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that it is a case where the appellant has been falsely implicated. It has been submitted that the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 13.09.2024 and as such, the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the court below, therefore, it is a fit case where the impugned order needs interference. 3. While on the other hand, Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State, has vehemently opposed 2 the prayer to interfere with the impugned order. It has been contended that as per the recovery made by the Investigating Agency, the gun factory has been discovered said to be run in the house of the present appellant. The appellant is having three criminal antecedents. It has further been submitted that only six witnesses have to be examined and as such, the direction may be given to expedite the trial. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available in the impugned order and also the case diary. 5. This Court, taking into consideration the fact that the appellant is having three criminal antecedents and also, he has been found running a gun factory in his house, further, only six witnesses have to be examined and as such, is of the view that it is not the case where the impugned order needs interference. 6. Accordingly, this instant criminal appeal stands dismissed. 7. However, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Sachin-Sunil/