1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No.274 of 2025 ------ Ram Krishna Mandal, aged about 49 years, S/o Jagal Mandal, R/o village-Naya Toli Simaliya Near Plastic Factory, P.O. & P.S.-Ratu, District-Ranchi, R/o Semrahi Ward No.3 Radhapur, P.O. & PS. & Dist-Supaul State-Bihar, Pin Code-852131 …. …. 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. Altamash Khan, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, APP ------ 05/Dated: 25.03.2025 I.A. No.(Cr.) No.2920 of 2025 1. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks leave of this Court to make necessary correction in the cause title of the instant interlocutory application by incorporating the provision of Section 21(5) of the N.I.A. Act, 2008. 2. Considering his prayer, let necessary correction be made in the instant interlocutory application in course of the day. 3. The instant interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 21(5) of the N.I.A. Act for condoning the delay of 19 days in preferring the instant appeal. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Considering the reason assigned in the interlocutory application and taking into consideration the purport of Section 21(5) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, the delay of 19 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned. 6. Accordingly, I.A.(Cr.) No.2920 of 2025 stands allowed. 2 Cr. Appeal (DB) No.274 of 2025 1. The instant appeal preferred under Section 21(4) of the NIA, Act, 2008 is directed against the order dated 07.12.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge at Lohardaga in A.B.P. No.432 of 2024, in connection with Bhandra P.S. Case No.65 of 2024, registered for the offence under Section 25(1-b)a/25(1-AA)/26/35 of Arms Act, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for pre-arrest bail of the appellant has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is case where there is no recovery and the name of the appellant has only come in the FIR in the instant case on the basis of confessional statement of one Chiranjeev Krishna, co-accused. 3. It has been contended that since there is no recovery and merely on the ground of confession made by the co-accused, the name of the present appellant has come in the instant case, therefore, it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the learned court while considering the prayer for pre-arrest bail, hence, the present appeal. 5. While on the other hand, learned APP appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer for pre- arrest bail. 6. It has been contended that the name of the present appellant has come on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused 3 persons, namely, Kundan Gope @ Langra and Chiranjeev Krishna who were arrested on spot, as would be evident from paragraph-8 and 9 of the case diary. 7. It has been contended that the prayer made in this appeal is for quashing the order passed by the learned court by which the prayer for anticipatory bail has been rejected and as such, reasoning which has been assigned by the concerned learned court cannot be said to suffer from an error, therefore, it is not a case where the impugned order needs any interference. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding recorded by the learned court in the impugned order dated 07.12.2024. 9. It is evident from the first information report and the order passed by the learned court while considering the prayer for anticipatory bail that the name of the present appellant has come on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused persons, namely, Kundan Gope @ Langra and Chiranjeev Krishna, who were arrested on spot, as has been found by the learned court at paragraph-8 and 9 of the case diary. 10. The same has also been taken note by Dy. S.P. Headquarter, Lohardaga while making case against the appellant true, as would be evident from the order impugned. 11. Learned court has also considered the culpability said to be committed by the present appellant along with other co-accused persons by taking note of the fact that the appellant brought the 4 arms and ammunitions from Bihar and his associates were involved in selling or purchasing illegal arms and ammunitions. As per seizure list, huge quantity of country made pistol and other pistols along with cartridges have been shown to be recovered and seized. 12. We are conscious with the settled legal position on the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1 in the matter of anticipatory bail that courts should be guided by factors like the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case. 13. Further, it has been held that the time-tested principles are that no straitjacket formula can be applied for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. The judicial discretion of the Court shall be guided by various relevant factors and largely it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 14. We, on consideration of the aforesaid settled position of law for the purpose of consideration of anticipatory bail and taking into consideration the reason assigned by the learned court while rejecting the prayer for anticipatory bail primarily the fact that the involvement of the petitioner in bringing the arms and ammunitions from Bihar and his associates have been found to be involved in selling or purchasing the arms and ammunitions, therefore, are of the view that the order impugned as has been passed by the learned court in rejecting the prayer for anticipatory 5 bail, cannot be said to suffer from an error. 15. In the result, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Rohit/-