JUDGMENT : 1 . The instant appeal filed under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act , 2008, is directed against the order dated 10.07.2024 passed in B.P. No.508 of 2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III , Gumla, in connection with Sessions Trial (Spt.) Case No.06 of 2021, arising out of Gumla P.S. Case No.313 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. No.906 of 2013 registered under Sections 307, 326 and 34 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act, by which, the prayer for regular bail of the appellant, has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is not named in the FIR and no recovery said to be there either from the physical or conscious possession of the present appellant. 3. It has been submitted that the learned court when has got no material showing implication of the present appellant as per the prosecution version, even then, the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been rejected by citing instance of pending eight criminal cases against him. 4. It has been contended that in all criminal cases, the appellant has been released on bail and one case has been disposed of. While, in Kotwali P.S. Case No.90 of 2015, the appellant even not an accused but even then, said case is pending against him. 5. It has further been submitted that reference of Pakartanr P.S. Case No.04 of 2020 and Pakartanr P.S. Case No.10 of 2020 have also been made, in which, the appellant has not been remanded, then how can these two cases are said to be pending against the present appellant. 6. It has further been submitted that even though, the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 28.06.2024 but no witness has yet been examined. 7. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that it is, therefore, a fit case to interfere with the impugned order. 8. While on the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. 9. It has been contended that the ground which has been taken by the learned court in rejecting the prayer for regular bail, is pending eight criminal cases. 8. While on the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. 9. It has been contended that the ground which has been taken by the learned court in rejecting the prayer for regular bail, is pending eight criminal cases. However, it has been submitted by referring to the averment made in the affidavit that altogether 13 cases are pending against the appellant including the present one and as such, he has been considered to be history-sheeter. 10. Learned State Counsel, based upon the aforesaid, has submitted that it is not a fit case where the impugned order needs to be interfered with. 11. We have 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 in-objection along with the reply filed on behalf of the appellant to that objection. 12. The ground of rejection of prayer for regular bail as has been shown by the learned court is eight pending criminal cases against the present appellant. However, it has come on record that there are 13 pending criminal cases against the appellant. 13. Reply has been filed on behalf of the appellant. In the said reply, the status/outcome of the pending 13 criminal cases have been shown, as would be evident from para-6 thereof, which reads as under:- Sl. No. Case No. Status 1. Gumla P.S. Case No.313 of 2013 Present Case 2. Gumla P.S. Case No.317 of 2013 Bail 3. Raidih P.S. Case No.61 of 2001 Disposed of 4. Raidih P.S. Case No.31 of 2015 Bail 5. Raidih P.S. Case No.10 of 2023 Bail 6. Raidih P.S. Case No.21 of 2022 Bail 7. Raidih P.S. Case No.21 of 2023 Facing Trail 8. Ghaghra P.S. Case No.126 of 2016 Bail 9. Ghaghra P.S. Case No.22 of 2017 Bail 10. Kotwali P.S. Case No.90 of 2015 Not against the Appellant 11. Pundag P.S. Case No.70 of 2017 Bail 12. Pakartanr P.S. Case No.04 of 2020 Not remanded 13. Pakartanr P.S. Case No.10 of 2020 Not remanded 14. It would be evident therefrom that in Kotwali P.S. Case No.90 of 2015, the appellant has not arrayed as an accused. Kotwali P.S. Case No.90 of 2015 Not against the Appellant 11. Pundag P.S. Case No.70 of 2017 Bail 12. Pakartanr P.S. Case No.04 of 2020 Not remanded 13. Pakartanr P.S. Case No.10 of 2020 Not remanded 14. It would be evident therefrom that in Kotwali P.S. Case No.90 of 2015, the appellant has not arrayed as an accused. It also appears from serial no.12 and 13, wherein, reference of Pakartanr P.S. Case No.04 of 2020 and Pakartanr P.S. Case No.10 of 2020 have been made, in which, the appellant has been shown to be not remanded. 15. No reply in rebuttal on behalf of the State, is on record. 16. It appears from the impugned order that no discussion has been made with respect to the involvement of the present appellant in commission of crime and merely on the ground of eight pending criminal cases, the prayer for regular of the appellant has been rejected. However, all eight pending criminal cases have been lodged against the appellant after lodging of the instant case. 17. It is the settled position of law that the appellate court is require to consider the fact in entirety with respect to the involvement of the person concerned who has arrayed as an accused and the antecedent part cannot be said to be only ground in making a view as to whether the person concerned is entitled for bail or not. 18. The antecedent cannot be sole ground without having any discussion of the involvement of the person concerned in the commission of crime in a particular case, that too the learned court has not examined the status of the pending criminal cases which is being now said that the appellant has been directed to be released on bail in most of the cases and one case, i.e., Raidih P.S. Case No.61 of 2021 has already been disposed of, while, in other case being Kotwali P.S. Case No.90 of 2015, he has not been named. Further, in two cases, i.e., Pakartanr P.S. Case No.04 of 2020 and Pakartanr P.S. Case No.10 of 2020, the appellant has not been remanded. Moreover, the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 28.06.2024. 19. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the impugned order needs to be interfered with. 20. Further, in two cases, i.e., Pakartanr P.S. Case No.04 of 2020 and Pakartanr P.S. Case No.10 of 2020, the appellant has not been remanded. Moreover, the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 28.06.2024. 19. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the impugned order needs to be interfered with. 20. Accordingly, the order dated 10.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Gumla in B.P. No.508 of 2024, is hereby quashed and set aside. 21. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed. 22. 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) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Gumla, in connection with Sessions Trial (Spt.) Case No.06 of 2021, arising out of Gumla P.S. Case No.313 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. No.906 of 2013, 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 court shall have liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law so that trial, be not hindered and further that one of the bailors should be close relative of the appellant, which is to be accompanied by affidavit justifying that such bailor is close relative of the appellant. 23. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of.