JUDGMENT : 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dated 26.07.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chatra in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.919 of 2023 whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with Piparwar P.S. Case No.36 of 2019, registered for the offence under Sections 385, 386, 387 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 17(i)(ii) of the C.L.A. Act and Sections 16, 17, 20 and 23 of the UAP Act, has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that there is no specific allegation said to attract any penal offence including the offence under UAP Act, 1967. Such submission has been made on the ground that there is general and omnibus allegation against 77 accused persons, as would be evident from the F.I.R. but there is no specific attributability said to be committed by the present appellant. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that in the present case no sanction has been granted by the competent authority as required under Section 45 of the UAP Act, 1967 and, as such, even the cognizance has not been taken for the offence under the UAP Act. 4. The submission has also been made that the State in the affidavit-in-objection has shown six (06) criminal cases pending against him but out of six (06) cases, in three (03) criminal cases, the appellant has been acquitted. The most of the cases are under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 20.07.2023. 5. The ground has also been taken that identically placed accused persons have also been directed to be released on bail or have been granted anticipatory bail as per the order appended as Annexure-2 to Annexure-7, namely, Mukesh Ganjhu @ Muneshwar Ganjhu vide order dated 30.03.2022 in B.A. No.611 of 2022, Kayum Ansari @ Abdul Kayum Ansari vide order dated 28.01.2022 in B.A. No.15282 of 2021, Arjun Ganjhu vide order dated 07.07.2020 in A.B.A. No.9007 of 2019, Darshan Ganjhu vide order dated 14.03.2022 in A.B.A. No.1819 of 2022, Md. Aslam @ Aslam Miyan vide order dated 10.07.2020 in A.B.A. No.2434 of 2020 and Kinu Rana vide order dated 20.07.2020 in A.B.A. No.2421 of 2020. 6. Aslam @ Aslam Miyan vide order dated 10.07.2020 in A.B.A. No.2434 of 2020 and Kinu Rana vide order dated 20.07.2020 in A.B.A. No.2421 of 2020. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted it is a fit case where the impugned order may be interfered with. 7. While on the other hand, Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Jharkhand, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but the fact about acquittal in three cases, i.e., Piparwar P.S. Case No.62 of 2003, Piparwar P.S. Case No.20 of 2004and Piparwar P.S. Case No.42 of 2009, has not been disputed since the same is available on record. 8. Further, in the present case sanction, as required under Section 45 of the UAP Act, has still not been granted which is also available in the status report which was called for by this Court vide order dated 1st February, 2024. 9. This Court, after going through the F.I.R., has found that identical allegations have been levelled against 77 accused persons and some of the accused persons, namely, Mukesh Ganjhu @ Muneshwar Ganjhu vide order dated 30.03.2022 in B.A. No.611 of 2022, Kayum Ansari @ Abdul Kayum Ansari vide order dated 28.01.2022 in B.A. No.15282 of 2021, Arjun Ganjhu vide order dated 07.07.2020 in A.B.A. No.9007 of 2019, Darshan Ganjhu vide order dated 14.03.2022 in A.B.A. No.1819 of 2022, Md. Aslam @ Aslam Miyan vide order dated 10.07.2020 in A.B.A. No.2434 of 2020 and Kinu Rana vide order dated 20.07.2020 in A.B.A. No.2421 of 2020 have been granted regular/anticipatory bail by the learned Single Judge. 10. This Court, however, is exercising the power of appellate jurisdiction over the order passed by the concerned learned court whereby the prayer for regular bail has been rejected but considering the fact that the learned Single Judge has considered the issue of omnibus and vague allegations based upon which the co-accused persons have been granted regular/anticipatory bail, the same cannot be said to be not followed unless the State would have pointed out some distinguishable fact in the case of the appellant to that of the case of the co-accused persons who have been granted regular/anticipatory bail (Annexure-2 to 7). 11. 11. However, the ground of criminal antecedent has been taken in order to distinguish the case of the appellant with those who have been granted regular/anticipatory bail but, on scrutiny of the status report of pending criminal cases, we have found that out of six (06) criminal cases including the present one, in three (03) cases the appellant has been acquitted. In the present case, the sanction is still awaited so far as the offence under the UAP Act is concerned. 12. Further, the other pending cases are not under the UAP Act, rather, it is penal offence under the Indian Penal Code. 13. This Court, taking into consideration the period of custody of the appellant as also the fact that the identically placed accused persons have already been granted regular/anticipatory bail, therefore, is of the view that there is no reason to not interfere with the impugned order. 14. Accordingly order dated 26.07.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chatra in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.919 of 2023, is hereby quashed and set aside. 15. In consequence 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.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chatra in connection with Piparwar P.S. Case No.36 of 2019, 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. Subject to further condition that one of the bailors should be the father/near relative of the appellant. In failure, the learned trial court shall have liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law so that trial be not hindered. 17. The instant criminal appeal stands disposed of.