ORDER : 1. The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 09.05.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Latehar by which the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in Misc. Criminal Application No. 301 of 2024 in connection with ST No. 214/2023 arising out of Latehar P.S. Case No. 164 of 2022 registered under Sections 25(1-A), 25(1-AA), 26(2), 35 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of CLA Act has been rejected. 2. The submission has been made that the identically placed co-accused persons, namely, Upendra Yadav and Raju Yadav @ Raju Ji, have been directed to be released on bail by this Court vide order dated 10.12.2024, and 27.11.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 693 of 2024 and Cr.Appeal (DB) No. 889 of 2024, respectively. 3. Further it has been submitted that the other co-accused persons namely Kuldeep Mehta @ Bikesh Ji and Bigan Bhuiyan, have also been directed to be released on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.04.2024 and 08.05.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1877 of 2023 and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 536 of 2024, respectively. 4. It has further been contended that even the prayer for regular bail of co-accused namely Raju Yadav @ Raju Ji who prayer was rejected on earlier occasion has already been granted bail by this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that since the identical co-accused persons has already granted bail, therefore, the interfere with the impugned order requires herein. 6. While on the other hand, Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail but he is fair enough to admit the fact that the allegation against the appellant and the co-accused persons is identical. 7. Further, the bail granted in favour of the identically placed co-accused persons has also not been disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 8. 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. 9. 8. 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. 9. This Court, taking into consideration the fact that the implication as alleged is identical to that of the co-accused, particularly, of Raju Yadav @ Raju Ji, is of the view that the impugned order needs to be interfered with. 10. Further, the co-accused persons namely, Upendra Yadav and Raju Yadav @ Raju Ji, have been directed to be released on bail by this Court vide order dated 10.12.2024, and 27.11.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB)No. 693 of 2024 and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 889 of 2024, respectively. 11. It has also come on record that the other co-accused persons namely Kuldeep Mehta @ Bikesh Ji and Bigan Bhuiyan, have also been directed to be released on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.04.2024 and 08.05.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1877 of 2023 and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 536 of 2024, respectively, therefore on the basis of aforesaid facts, there is no need to take the distinct view. 12. Accordingly, the order dated 09.05.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Latehar in Misc. Criminal Application No. 301 of 2024, by which the prayer for regular bail of the appellant, in connection with ST No. 214/2023 arising out of Latehar P.S. Case No. 164 of 2022, is hereby quashed and set aside. 13. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed. 14. Criminal Application No. 301 of 2024, by which the prayer for regular bail of the appellant, in connection with ST No. 214/2023 arising out of Latehar P.S. Case No. 164 of 2022, is hereby quashed and set aside. 13. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed. 14. 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-III, Latehar in connection with ST No. 214/2023 arising out of Latehar P.S. Case No. 164 of 2022, 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. 15. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of.