ORDER : 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dated 13.09.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum- Special Judge, Cyber Crime Case, Deoghar in Misc. Cri. Application No. 1319 of 2024 whereby and whereunder, the prayer for regular bail of the appellant in connection with Sessions Trial No. 12 of 2024, arising out of Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No. 16 of 2023, registered for the offence under Sections 302, 120B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section ¾ of the Explosive Substances Act, has been rejected. 2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the prayer for regular bail has been renewed on the ground of custody. 3. It has been contended that although the prayer for regular bail of the appellant was rejected on earlier occasion, but the trial since, has not yet been concluded. The aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration, therefore, the impugned order needs interference. 4. It has been contended that co-accused namely, Md. Akram Sheikh has been released on bail in terms of order dated 17.05.2023 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 407 of 2023. 5. While on the other hand, Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State assisted by Mr. Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the prayer to interfere with the impugned order. 6. It has been contended that against the appellant, there is direct allegation of assaulting the deceased by bullet. As such, the case of present appellant is quite different to that of the other co-accused person, who has been directed to be released on bail, as there was no specific overt act against that person. The trial is in progress, since, out of ten witnesses, seven witnesses have been examined. 7. It has been contended that co-accused person namely, Mantu Yadav, whose prayer for regular bail was rejected by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on the ground that he was having with a bomb and also exploded the said bomb at the place of occurrence. 8. Both the learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground has submitted that it is not a fit case to interfere with the impugned order. 9. 8. Both the learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground has submitted that it is not a fit case to interfere with the impugned order. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone into findings recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned order. 10. The ground of parity as also the period of custody has been taken on behalf of the appellant to interfere with the impugned order. 11. So far the ground of parity is concerned, the other co-accused, although has been granted bail as it would be evident from Annexure-2, but we, on examination of his culpability from the case diary, have found that against the said appellant namely, Md. Akram Sheikh, there is no specific overt act, while against the present appellant, there is specific overt act, said to have been given bullet assault upon the deceased, who succumb to injury. Therefore, the case of the present appellant does not stand on the principle of parity so as to take aid from the order passed in connection with the case of Akram Seikh, appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 407 of 2023. 12. We have considered the order dated 17.12.2024 passed by this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 676 of 2024, which was in respect to Mantu Yadav, whose prayer for bail has been rejected on the ground that said Mantu Yadav has been found and caught red handed along with the bomb, which was exploded at the place of occurrence. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the case of the appellant stands on the same footing to that of the allegation as alleged against Mantu Yadav, whose prayer for regular bail has been rejected. 13. The second ground has been taken with respect to slow progress in the trial. We have called for the status report and found therefrom, altogether seven accused persons are there, number of witnesses said to be ten, out of which four witnesses have been examined. Therefore, this Court cannot derive a conclusion that progress of the trial is slow. 14. Taking into consideration the involvement of the present appellant and also the trial is going on, this Court is of the view that it is not fit case where the impugned order needs to be interfered. 15. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed.