IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.97 of 2025 ----- Bhairo Ganjhu @ Bhasakar Jee @ Virappan Jee, aged about 24 years, S/o Jethu Ganjhu @ Jaitu Ganjhu, R/o Village-Rajguru, PO & PS- Balumath, District-Latehar, Jharkhand … … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent ------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR ------- For the Appellant : Mr. Soumitra Baroi, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Rajnish Vardhan, A.P.P. ------ Order No.2/Dated: 31st January, 2025 I.A. No.565 of 2025 The instant interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 21(5) of the N.I.A. Act for condoning the delay of 14 days in preferring the instant appeal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. 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 14 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. Accordingly, I.A. No.565 of 2025 stands allowed. Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.97 of 2025 5. The instant appeal under section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 has been directed against the order dated 27.11.2024 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Latehar in Misc. Criminal Application No.669 of 2024 whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with S.T Case No.207 of 2023 arising out of Balumath P.S. Case No.181 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. 2 Case No.819/2021(A) registered for the offence under Sections 25(1-B) (a), 26, 35 of the Arms Act, Sections 25(1-AA), 25(6), 25(7) of the Arms Amendment Act and Section 17 of C.L.A Act, has been rejected. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that it is a case where the appellant has falsely been implicated. 7. The submission has also been made that no case has been made out against the appellant because nothing incriminating has been recovered and seized from his conscious possession. It has further been submitted that the name of the appellant came in the alleged crime merely on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused, namely, Pradeep Kumar Ganjhu @ Prabhat Jee who disclosed the name of other co-accused persons, namely, Chandan Kumar @ Chandan Singh @ Chandan Ganjhu and Rajesh Singh. Pradeep Kumar Ganjhu @ Prabhat Jee has been granted bail vide order dated 23.02.2022 passed in B.A No. 16284 of 2021 by a Single Bench of this Court. 8. The further submission has been made that the other co-accused persons, namely, Chandan Kumar @ Chandan Singh @ Chandan Ganjhu has been granted bail vide order dated 20.08.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1020 of 2024 by this Court and Rajesh Singh has been granted bail vide order dated 30.04.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.416 of 2024 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. It has further been submitted that in the present case the appellant is in custody since 18.11.2022. 9. Based on the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that since the case of the appellant is based on similar footing as that of the other co-accused persons and, as such, impugned order may be interfered with on the principle of parity. 3 10. While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor although has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the appellant is a hardcore criminal, but he is fair enough to admit the fact that the identically co-accused persons, namely, Pradeep Kumar Ganjhu @ Prabhat Jee, Chandan Kumar @ Chandan Singh @ Chandan Ganjhu and Rajesh Singh have been released on bail by this Court as well as by different co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 11. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across the impugned order rejecting the prayer for regular bail of the appellant. 12. It appears from the materials available on record name of the present appellant came in the present case on the confession of the co- accused, namely, Pradeep Kumar Ganjhu @ Prabhat Jee who has been granted bail vide order dated 23.02.2022 passed in B.A No. 16284 of 2021 by a Single Bench of this Court. It also reveals that other co- accused persons, namely, Chandan Kumar @ Chandan Singh @ Chandan Ganjhu and Rajesh Singh, who were apprehended on the confessional statement of the said co-accused, have been released on bail by different co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 13. This Court, on consideration of the fact that the co-accused persons, against whom there are similar allegations, have been granted bail by this Court as well as by co-ordinate Bench of this Court, is of the view that the impugned order needs to be interfered with. 14. Accordingly, the order dated 27.11.2024 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Latehar in Misc. Criminal Application No.669 of 2024 in connection with S.T Case No.207 of 2023 arising out of 4 Balumath P.S. Case No.181 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. Case No.819/2021(A), is, hereby, quashed and set aside. 15. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed. 16. 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 Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Latehar in connection with S.T Case No.207 of 2023 arising out of Balumath P.S. Case No.181 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. Case No.819/2021(A), subject to the conditions that the appellant shall co-operate in the trial and shall not absent himself on the date fixed without any cogent cause and shall not commit offence of the like nature. In failure, the learned trial court shall have liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law so that trial be not hindered. 17. I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Navneet Kumar, J.) Sudhir