JUDGMENT : 1. The instant criminal appeal has been filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dated 01.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Palamau at Daltonganj in Misc. Cri. Application No.1531 of 2024, whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail in connection with Untari Road P.S. Case No.19 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1007 2016, S.T. No.213 of 2023 registered under Sections 147, 149, 435, 427, 379 of Indian Penal Code, Section 17 of CLA Act and Sections 38, 39 and 40 of UAP Act, has been rejected. 2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case where the appellant has falsely been implicated based upon confessional statement of the co-accused person and he is languishing in judicial custody since 07.12.2022. It has been contended that several co-accused have been directed to release on bail as evident from the order dated 12 th April, 2023 passed in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.194 of 2023, wherein, the reference of the orders passed with respect to the other co-accused persons have been taken one. 3. It has been contended that even though the appellant is in judicial custody since long and out of 9 witnesses, only one witness has been examined as yet. Hence, the submission has been made that it is a fit case to interfere with the impugned order. 4. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted on the strength of the affidavit in objection citing the involvement of the appellant in 29 criminal cases. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that so far as the issue of pending criminal cases are concerned, he has responded to the same stating in supplementary affidavit as under paragraphs 4 & 5, wherein, it has been stated that in most of the cases, he is on bail and in eight cases, the appellant has been acquitted from the charges of criminal liability. 6. It has been submitted that the trial is not in progress. It is not available for the State to make opposition taking into consideration the period of custody. 7. This Court heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding of the learned trial court in the impugned order. The issue of release of the co-accused person on bail has not been disputed. It is not available for the State to make opposition taking into consideration the period of custody. 7. This Court heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding of the learned trial court in the impugned order. The issue of release of the co-accused person on bail has not been disputed. However, the serious opposition has been made on the ground of pending criminal cases i.e.29 in number as has been agitated in the affidavit in objection filed. 8. The respond, therefore, has been filed on behalf of the appellant stating therein that in most of the cases, the appellant has been directed to release on bail and in some of the cases, he has been acquitted. The details have been furnished at paragraphs 4 & 5 of the supplementary affidavit dated 28.01.2025. 9. The question, which has been raised on behalf of the State regarding number of pending cases, can be a ground to deny the release the appellant on bail, the same cannot be set to be straight jacket formula rather the same is to be seen depending upon the facts and circumstances and also the conduct of the prosecution. Herein, the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 07.12.2022 and out of nine witnesses only one witness has been examined as yet. The question is that when the appellant has already been remaining in custody for more than three years and there is no progress in trial then the objection cannot be said to be sustainable as has been taken by the State, keeping the mandate of Article 21 of Constitution of India. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to interfere with the impugned order. 10. Accordingly, the order dated 01.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Palamau at Daltonganj in Misc. Cri. Application No.1531 of 2024, is hereby quashed and set aside. 11. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed. 12. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to interfere with the impugned order. 10. Accordingly, the order dated 01.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Palamau at Daltonganj in Misc. Cri. Application No.1531 of 2024, is hereby quashed and set aside. 11. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed. 12. 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 Additional Sessions Judge-II, Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Untari Road P.S. Case No.19 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1007 2016, S.T. No.213 of 2023 subject to the condition that the appellant will co-operate 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/her 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. 13. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of.