ORDER : 1. The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, is directed against the order dated 27.06.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Latehar by which the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 406 of 2024 in connection with S.T. Case No. 78/2022 arising out of Balumath P.S. Case No. 95/2018, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 351/2018 registered under Sections 323/341/342/307/384/385/427/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and27 of the Arms Act and 10 and 13 of the U.A.P Act, has been rejected. 2. It has further been contended that although the prayer for regular bail of the appellant was rejected on earlier occasion as it is evident from the order dated 6 th February 2024 passed in Criminal Appeal (D.B) No. 1653 of 2023 but there is no progress in the trial, since, out of ten (10) witnesses only one (01) witness has been examined while the appellant has already been in custody for almost three (03) years. 3. It has also been contended that the reason for the rejection of the prayer for regular bail on earlier occasion was the criminal antecedents which was said to be six (06), out of which three (03) criminal cases, the appellant has been acquitted. 4. It has also been submitted that the name of the appellant has come in this case on the basis of confession made by one co-accused Sandeep Paswan, who has been directed to be released on bail by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 06.12.2018 in B.A No. 8184 of 2018. On that day, the said offence was not under the heading of the scheduled offence. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that it is a fit case to interfere with the impugned order. 6. While on the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail so far as the implication of the present appellant in the instant case is concerned, but he has not disputed the fact regarding the slow progress in the trial. 7. 6. While on the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail so far as the implication of the present appellant in the instant case is concerned, but he has not disputed the fact regarding the slow progress in the trial. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the rival submissions and is of the view that even the case of the present appellant has earlier been rejected on earlier occasion but the trial is still in progress. 8. This Court has called upon the status report vide order dated 18.12.2024 is available on record which is kept at Flag-A and even from perusal of the status report, it is apparent that the charge sheet was filed on 28.05.2019 wherein the total number of witnesses has been cited ten (10) in number. But charge was framed on 11.12.2023, and till the submission of status report only (01) witness has been examined and still nine (09) witnesses are yet to be examined. The said report is dated 04.01.2025. 9. Further, the appellant has been in judicial custody since 28.03.2022. 10. This Court, is conscious with the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. So far as criminal antecedent is concern out of six (06) criminal cases, the appellant has been acquitted in three (03) criminal case, and in support of this fact the learned counsel for the appellant has placed the respective judgment before this Court and from perusal of the certified copy of the judgment of acquittal passed in S.T. No. 178 of 2022 passed by learned Additional Session Judge-IV, Hazaribagh, S.T. No. 15 of 2021 passed by learned District and Session Judge-IV, Hazaribagh and S.T. No. 237 of 2021 passed by learned Additional Session Judge-VII, Hazaribagh. 11. This Court, considering the aforesaid fact, is of the view that the impugned order dated 27.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Latehar, in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 406 of 2024 in connection with Balumath P.S. Case No. 95/2018, by which the prayer for regular bail of the appellant was rejected, is hereby quashed and set aside. 12. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed. 13. 12. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed. 13. 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 Additional Sessions Judge-I, Latehar in connection with S.T. Case No. 78/2022 arising out of Balumath P.S. Case No. 95/2018, 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 and in case of his father being no more, a close relative of the appellant, which is to be accompanied by affidavit justifying that such bailor is close relative of the appellant. 14. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of. 15. The photocopy of certified copy of judgment of acquittal in S.T. No. 178 of 2022 passed by learned Additional Session Judge-IV, Hazaribagh, S.T. No. 15 of 2021 passed by learned District and Session Judge-IV, Hazaribagh and S.T. No. 237 of 2021 passed by learned Additional Session Judge-VII, Hazaribagh is available. Let the photocopy of the judgment of acquittal be kept on record.