JUDGMENT : 1. The instant criminal appeal has been filed under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dated 09.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Chakradharpur (Chaibasa) in Misc. Cr. Application No. 879 of 2024, whereby and whereunder the prayer for regular bail in connection with Goelkera P.S. Case No.11 of 2024 (S.T. Case No.252 of 2024) registered under Sections 147 , 148, 149 , 353 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code , Sections 25 (1-A) and 35 of Arms Act, 1959 , under Section 17 of C.L.A. Act, 1908 , under sections 4 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 16 (1)(b) , 18 and 20 of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 , has been rejected. 2. It has been contended on behalf of learned counsel for the appellant that it is a case where the appellant has falsely been implicated and has been taken into custody on 21.02.2024 and illegally confined the appellant without producing him before the Magistrate within a period of 24 hours, for which the Criminal Writ Petition for issuance of writ Habeas Corpus has also been filed i.e. W.P.C (Cr.) (HB) No.190 of 2024. It has been contended by making reference of the order dated 18.03.2024 passed in W.P. (Cr.) (HB) No. 190 of 2024 that when this court has issued notice, then only the F.I.R. has been instituted upon the petitioner for offence said to be committed as referred in the First Information Report on 17.03.2024. 3. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, primarily submitted that it is a case of false implication of the present appellant. It has been contended that in the affidavit in objection, the ground of one criminal antecedent has been taken, but in the said case, which was instituted on the same day i.e. on 17.03.2024, the appellant has been directed to be released on bail and to that effect the specific assertion is available in the affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant. The charge-sheet has already been submitted. Hence, the prayer has been made to interfere with the impugned order. 4. The charge-sheet has already been submitted. Hence, the prayer has been made to interfere with the impugned order. 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for State has vehemently opposed the prayer to interfere with the impugned order and submitted that the appellant has one criminal antecedent and he is an active member of a banned organization and as such it is not a fit case to interfere in the impugned order. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the findings recorded by the learned court as also the case diary. 6. On consideration of material said to be surfaced in the course of investigation as recorded in the case diary we found that there is no recovery said to be made from the physical or conscious possession of the appellant. The appellant is in custody since 17.03.2024 and the charge-sheet has already been submitted. This court is of the view that it is a fit case to interfere with the impugned order. 7. Accordingly, the order dated 09.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Chakradharpur (Chaibasa) in Misc. Cr. Application No.879 of 2024, is hereby quashed and set aside. 8. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed. 9. 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 Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in connection with Goelkera P.S. Case No.11 of 2024 (S.T. Case No.252 of 2024), 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. 10. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of.