ORDER : 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act , 2008 against the order dated 22.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Simdega in Misc. Cri. Application No.248 of 2024 whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with Sessions Trial Case No.69/2023 arising out of T.Tanger P.S. Case No.7 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No.230 of 2023, registered for the offence under Sections 363, 370(4), 341, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 75/81 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act , has been rejected. 2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that two identically placed accused persons, namely, Sunila Dungdung and Priska Soreng @ Prisca Soreng have been directed to be released on bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.05.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.263 of 2024 and order dated 13.05.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.54 of 2024 respectively. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant of Cr. Appeal (DB) No.54 of 2024 has been allowed to be released on bail on the ground of custody as also on the ground that the informant, who has been examined as PW-2, has not supported the case of the prosecution. 4. The contention has been raised that the trial is lingering since after the examination of the Investigating Officer, again summon has been issued to one another witness, namely, Gloriyas Kerketta, which shows that the prosecution in one way of the other wants no early conclusion of the trial even though the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 22.02.2023. 5. Learned counsel based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the allegation against the appellant as per the F.I.R. is identical to that of Sunila Dungdung and Priska Soreng @ Prisca Soreng who have already been directed to be released on bail and, as such, it is a fit case where the impugned order may be interfered with so that the appellant may be released from the judicial custody. 6. While on the other hand, Mr. Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State, has vehemently opposed the prayer to show interference with the impugned order. 7. 6. While on the other hand, Mr. Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State, has vehemently opposed the prayer to show interference with the impugned order. 7. However, learned State counsel is fair enough to admit the fact about the nature of involvement of co-accused, namely, Sunila Dungdung and Priska Soreng @ Prisca Soreng whose case has been said to be identical to that of the present appellant. 8. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties, gone across the material as recorded in the impugned order. 9. It appears that although the appellant had filed appeal on earlier occasion but the same was withdrawn and as has been submitted on behalf of the appellant, the said withdrawal was on the ground that the trial was at the verge of closure at that time but still the trial is pending. 10. This Court, in order to have the status report, has passed order on 12.12.2024 directing the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to explain as to what action has been taken against the police witnesses/police officers who did not turn up for adducing evidence. 11. It further appears from the order passed by this Court on 21.01.2025 which was passed when it was brought to the notice of this Court that even after examination of the I.O. the prosecution evidence has not been closed and the stage of the trial has not been changed and to that effect the explanation has been sought for also from the concerned court. 12. It appears from the report furnished by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I, Simdega wherein it has been reported that after discharge of the I.O. the summon has been issued against the remaining witness, i.e., only one chargesheeted witness, namely, Gloriyas Kerketta, S/o Late Edward Kerketta. 13. The main emphasis of argument as has been made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the case of the present appellant is identical to that of co-accused Sunila Dungdung and Priska Soreng @ Prisca Soreng who have been directed to be released on bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. 14. 13. The main emphasis of argument as has been made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the case of the present appellant is identical to that of co-accused Sunila Dungdung and Priska Soreng @ Prisca Soreng who have been directed to be released on bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. 14. This Court has considered the said aspect of the matter from the F.I.R. and found therefrom that the case of the present appellant, so far as the imputation of allegation is concerned, is identical to that of co-accused Sunila Dungdung and Priska Soreng @ Prisca Soreng. 15. This Court, therefore, is of the view by taking into consideration the long incarceration of the present appellant in the judicial custody, that the order passed by the learned court needs interference. 16. Accordingly, the order dated 22.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Simdega in Misc. Cri. Application No.248 of 2024, is hereby quashed and set aside. 17. In consequence thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed. 18. Accordingly, 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 learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Simdega in connection with Sessions Trial Case No.69/2023 arising out of T.Tanger P.S. Case No.7 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No.230 of 2023, subject to the condition that the appellant will appear before the concerned court on each and every date since the trial is at the fag end and in failure to do so, the bail bond of the appellant shall automatically stand cancelled. 19. The instant criminal appeal stands disposed of. Cr. Appeal (DB) No.573 of 2023 & Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1009 of 2024 20. It has been pointed out that in the order dated 09.01.2025, on the submission made by the learned State counsel, it has been recorded that one affidavit has been filed on 03.01.2025 but the same is not on record. 21. Today, it has been pointed out that no affidavit was filed on 03.01.2025, rather, the affidavit was filed on 22.01.2025 which is on record. 22. Learned State counsel, in view of the aforesaid, has submitted that paragraphs 1 and 2 of the order dated 09.01.2025 may be ordered to be deleted. 23. Accordingly, the order dated 09.01.2025 is modified. 24. Today, it has been pointed out that no affidavit was filed on 03.01.2025, rather, the affidavit was filed on 22.01.2025 which is on record. 22. Learned State counsel, in view of the aforesaid, has submitted that paragraphs 1 and 2 of the order dated 09.01.2025 may be ordered to be deleted. 23. Accordingly, the order dated 09.01.2025 is modified. 24. Perused the affidavit dated 22.01.2025 filed in terms of the earlier order dated 12.12.2024. 25. It appears from the report as available at page 57 of the affidavit regarding action taken by the concerned competent authority against the police witnesses who have defied the summons issued by the concerned court by not appearing on the date fixed for examination/cross-examination. 26. Let further update with respect to the action taken report be brought on record along with detailed data from the concerned Assistant Public Prosecutor of the respective trial courts. 27. Let these matters be listed on 04.03.2025.