IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 351 of 2024 ---------- Rajendra Singh Munda @ Rajee @ Chandan, aged about 46 years, son of late Guru Charan Singh Munda, resident of village Balidih, P.O. and P.S. Chauka, District- Seraikella- Kharsawan. … … 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. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, APP ---------------------------- ORAL ORDER 12/Dated: 20th March, 2025: 1. The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the N.I.A. Act, is directed against the order dated 03.02.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in S.T. Case No. 89 of 2021, by which the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with M.G.M. P.S. Case no. 26 of 2016 registered under Sections 307, 353, 147, 148, 149 of the IPC, under Section 3/4 of Explosive Substance Act and under Section 17 of C.L.A. has been rejected. Submission of the learned counsel for the Appellant : 2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the appellant is absolutely innocent and nothing has been recovered from his physical possession. 3. The argument has been advanced mainly on the ground that the appellant is languishing in custody since 06.06.2018 but as yet the trial has not been concluded as such it is a fit case for suspension of sentence taking into consideration the implication of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. To buttress this limb of argument the learned counsel for the appellant has placed his reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India V KA Najeeb [(2021) 3 SCC 713]. 4. It has further been contended that the trial is also not in expeditious mode since out of 10 witnesses only 1 witness has been examined. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the learned court has not taken note of the aforesaid facts, therefore, the present appeal is fit to be allowed and it is a fit case where the appellant may be directed to be released on bail. Submission of the learned counsel for the State : 6. While on the other hand, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail. 7. The submissions have been made on the basis of the material as has been collected and recorded in the case diary and based upon that the affidavit-in-objection has been filed that as per the allegation the involvement of the present appellant is that he has attacked the Cobra Battalion of C.R.P.F. with AK-47. 8. Since the prayer has also been rejected by the concerned court, learned counsel appearing for the State, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that it is not a fit case to be interfered with. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent-NIA, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that since the nature of allegation leveled against the appellant is very grave, therefore, the present appeal is fit to be dismissed. Analysis 10. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, gone through the reason in the order impugned as also gone through the case diary and the affidavit-in-objection. 11. The argument primarily has been advanced of long incarceration of the present appellant in the judicial custody. 12. This Court needs to refer herein that wrong incarceration cannot be a single ground for consideration for bail in a case of serious nature of crime, where the scheduled offence has been alleged against the accused person. 13. Herein, as per the allegation, the appellant has been found to be involved in being a part of extremist group who has attacked the Cobra Battalion Team No. 11 which was led by one Mr. Nitesh Tiwari, Assistant Commandant. 14. From the side of the extremist group, about 30-35 round of firing was made from AK-47. During search, 2 steel boxes, 2 plastic bottles, 2 plastic bags, 1 chimki bag, 1 khukhri, some bid-matches, many small iron balls, black powder like explosive substance, 2 sleepers and 1 torch has been found. 15. The appellant was remanded to the present case, since he was in custody in connection with Patmada P.S. Case No. 41 of 2017. 16. The reference of the nature of allegation is being made in preceding paragraph in order to consider the applicability of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which has been considered the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gurwinder Singh versus State of Punjab reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 109 wherein by considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb it has been observed that mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offences cannot be used as a ground to grant bail. 17. The learned counsel for the appellant in his submission mainly emphasised that if the period of custody of the appellant will be taken into consideration, same is in the teeth of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and in this regard, he has put his reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (supra). 18. In the context of aforesaid this Court is of view that there is no quarrel about the settled position of law that Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides for protecting the fundamental right of liberty but that is to be assessed by carving out the balance in enforcing the law and order. Page 5 of 7 19. Further, since the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (supra), so as to interfere with the impugned order, therefore, this Court deems it fit and proper to going through the judgment as referred by learned counsel for the appellant. 20. In in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court was confronted with a circumstance wherein except the respondent-accused, other co- accused had already undergone trial and were sentenced to imprisonment of not exceeding eight years, therefore the Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the fact that since the respondent-accused had already served portion of the maximum imprisonment i.e., more than five years, hence not interfered in order granting bail. 21. . Further, in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (supra) the trial of the respondent-accused was severed from the other co- accused owing to his absconding and he was traced back in 2015 and was being separately tried thereafter and the NIA had filed a long list of witnesses that were left to be examined with reference to the said accused. 22. The Hon’ble Apex Court taking in to consideration the huge number of witnesses, i.e., 276, put a pin-pointed question therein for reducing the number of witnesses by the investigating agency and when the same has been shown to be not possible then the Hon’ble Apex Court, by taking into consideration the period of custody and there is no likelihood of conclusion of the trial in near future, has not interfered in the order granting bail to the respondent-accused. 23. But here in the instant case, as per the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant out of 10 witnesses, 01witness has already been examined. Thus, this Court is of the view that in the facts and circumstances the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex court in Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (supra) will not be applicable in fact and circumstances of instant case. 24. Further it is considered view of this Court that in the matter of serious nature of offence which has been found to be against the interest of the nation then Article 21 will not be said to be applicable reason being that a balance is to be maintain between the national security and personal liberty. 25. Now Adverting to the factual aspect of the present case, it is clear from the submission made by the learned counsel that out of 10 witnesses 01 witness has already been examined and as such it is not a case where the trial is not at progress. Further from the affidavit in objection, it is apparent that the present appellant having criminal antecedents. 26. This Court, considering the aforesaid fact that the trial is in progress and also taking into consideration the involvement of the present appellant in the commission of alleged crime, is of the view that there are chances of tampering and gaining over the witnesses. 27. Therefore, this Court is of the view that no interference is required with the impugned order. 28. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands rejected. 29. The trial is at progress and as such the learned state counsel has submitted that considering the period of incarceration of the present appellant the efforts shall be taken to conclude the trial expeditiously by producing the witnesses. 30. This Court taking note of the aforesaid submission, is directed to authority concerned to produce the prosecution witnesses without any delay so that the trial be concluded expeditiously. 31. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Samarth