JUDGMENT : 1. The instant appeal filed under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 18.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Jamtara in M.C.A. No. 516 of 2024, by which the prayer for grant of regular bail of the appellant in connection with Nala P.S. Case No. 58 of 2024 registered under Sections 3 79 , 411 of IPC and Section 15 (2), 15(4) of Petroleum & Mineral Pipeline (Acquisition of Right Users in Land) Act and Section 3 /4 of Explosive Substances Act and 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken the following grounds in assailing the impugned order: (i) There is no evidence said to be concrete for implicating the present appellant in the commission of crime of theft of petroleum product from the tanker which is said to be owned by one Sh. Noor Mahammad Khan bearing Vehicle No. WB-37-C-4286; (ii) There is no recovery of any incriminating material to connect the culpability said to be committed by the appellant in the commission of crime; (iii) One pipe said to be used in the theft of the petroleum product although has been recovered but not from the residence or from conscious physical possession of the appellant rather the same was recovered from the nearby road which according to the informant has been said to be recovered from the confession so made by the appellant; (iv) The recovery which has been shown vide seizure memo dated 06.04.2024 cannot be said to be linked to the present appellant since as per paragraphs-76 to 79 of the case diary, the appellant was arrested on 06.10.2024 and on his confession only a blue pipe and 10 inch salai rinch was recovered. (v) The said seizure cannot be said to be seizure rather it is production-cum-seizure as per the content of the said seizure memo. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that all these aspects have not been taken into consideration by the learned court while taking into consideration the issue of bail and merely on the ground of call dump report as has been found from the Call Detail Record since the appellant was found to be there, the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected. 4. 4. According to the appellant, merely on the basis of the call dump report, there cannot be any implication of anybody without any another corroborative piece of the conduct of the person concerned by connecting the culpability said to be committed. 5. The learned court merely on the ground of the seizure based upon the confession without taking into consideration the fact that the said seizure is not a seizure memo rather it is production-cum-seizure and further the recovery of the said incriminating material is not from the physical or conscious possession of the present appellant rather from the nearby road, therefore, while considering the prayer for bail these aspects have not been taken into consideration, hence, the impugned order needs interference. 6. The respondent-State is represented by Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor but this Court taking into consideration the mandate of Section 16 (c) of Petroleum & Mineral Pipeline (Acquisition of Right Users in Land) Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1962) has impleaded the Indian Oil Corporation Limited through its Manager, namely, Preetam Kujur as respondent no.2. 7. The notice had been issued to the respondent no.2 who has appeared and is being represented by Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel. 8. Affidavit-in-objection has also been filed by the respondent no.2. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has submitted by referring to the statement made in the said affidavit that there is ample material against the appellant showing the culpability having been committed by the appellant in the theft of petroleum fuel from the tanker which belongs to Sh. Noor Mahammad Khan. The said culpability is corroborated by the call dump report that at 02:00 a.m. on the date of occurrence, the present appellant was found at the place of occurrence where the theft has taken place. 10. It has further been submitted that the learned court has taken into consideration the aforesaid fact and not only that, the recovery of the pipe which was being used in the theft of the petroleum fuel from the aforesaid tanker, has also been recovered on the basis of the confession made by the appellant. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent-State while defending the impugned order has submitted that ample material has been collected in course of investigation as available in the case diary. 12. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent-State while defending the impugned order has submitted that ample material has been collected in course of investigation as available in the case diary. 12. It has been submitted that the learned court while considering the prayer for regular bail has taken into consideration the report of technical cell pointing out the location of the appellant at the place of occurrence. The same has been taken into consideration by the learned court, as such, it is not a case where the impugned order needs to be interfered with. 13. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding recorded by the learned court in the impugned order as also the case diary and the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.2. 14. The nature of allegation as has been alleged appears to be serious but the question is that the culpability as has been alleged, whether the same has been committed by the appellant or not. 15. The same is required to be considered taking into consideration the purport of Section 16 (c) of the Act, 1962 wherein it has been provided that the issue of bail is to be considered if there is no prima facie occurrence said to be committed by the appellant and that too before taking such decision, an opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the concerned Oil Company. 16. We, on consideration of the purport of the provision of Section 16 (c) of the Act, 1962, has proceeded to examine the factual aspect so as to come to the conclusion regarding the issue of propriety of the impugned order since we are exercising the power of appeal in view of the conferment of power under Section 21 (4) of the NIA Act, 2008. 17. While exercising the power of appeal, the Court is first to see the error apparent in the order impugned and if any error is found then the same is to be taken into consideration and the person concerned who is languishing in judicial custody is to be released. If there is no error, then there is no interference in the view taken by the concerned court. 18. We, while exercising the aforesaid jurisdiction, has examined the case diary and the affidavit-in-objection. 19. If there is no error, then there is no interference in the view taken by the concerned court. 18. We, while exercising the aforesaid jurisdiction, has examined the case diary and the affidavit-in-objection. 19. The main plank of argument which is the basis of the prosecution is the recovery of pipe which has been alleged to be used in the commission of crime, has been recovered on the confession of the appellant. The second ground has been taken by the learned court that the presence of the present appellant was found at the place of occurrence on the basis of call dump report/call detail record. 20. We are conscious with the settled position of law that if any recovery is there on the basis of the confession, then the implication of such person will be said to be there and for the aforesaid purpose, we have considered the seizure memo which although bears the signature of the present appellant but the same according to our considered view, cannot be said to be recovery of the said pipe on the basis of confession made by the appellant. 21. Further, the seizure memo which is the part of the paperbook is not a seizure memo rather it is production-cum-seizure memo. The said production of the recovered article is by one Preetam Kujur, the respondent no.2. The said production-cum-seizure memo had been prepared on 06.06.2024, i.e., before the arrest of the appellant, which cannot be linked to the present appellant since prima facie there is no cogent evidence put by the prosecution in this regard. 22. Herein, admittedly the appellant has been arrested on 06.10.2024 and as per the case diary, one blue colour pipe has been recovered on the confession of the appellant, i.e., after four months from the date of occurrence. 23. The second ground which we have taken into consideration that merely on the basis of call dump report can a person be implicated in absence of any corroborative evidence said to be collected in course at the stage of 173(2) Cr.P.C. 24. According to our considered view, there cannot be any conviction merely on the basis of the CDR report showing the presence a person nearby the place of occurrence. 25. According to our considered view, there cannot be any conviction merely on the basis of the CDR report showing the presence a person nearby the place of occurrence. 25. Although the same is to be tested in course of trial but since we are considering the issue of bail and as such, we are taking this as a prima facie view having no effect in the trial. 26. This Court, after having discussed the aforesaid fact and adverting to the reasoning given by the learned court, has found that there is no proper consideration with respect to the issue which has been discussed as hereinabove. 27. This Court, therefore, taking into consideration that the present appellant is in custody since 06.10.2024 and further the charge-sheet has already been submitted and the appellant is having no criminal antecedent, hence, is of the view that the impugned order needs to be interfered with. 28. Accordingly, the order dated 18.11.2024 passed in M.C.A. No. 516 of 2024 in connection with Nala P.S. Case No. 58 of 2024, is hereby quashed and set aside. 29. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed. 30. 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 S.D.J.M., Jamtara in connection with Nala P.S. Case No. 58 of 2024 subject to the condition that the appellant will cooperate in the trial and shall appear on each and every date before the learned trial court, failing which, the learned trial court is at liberty to take appropriate course in accordance with law and; further subject to the condition that one of the bailors should be the father of the appellant, which is to be accompanied by affidavit justifying that such bailor is the father of the appellant. 31. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of. 32. It is made clear that whatever observation has been made herein, will only restrict to the issue of bail having no effect either at the stage of cognizance or discharge of the trial.