JUDGMENT : (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1081 of 2024 1. The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigating Agency Act, 2008 is directed the order dated 23.07.2024 passed in Anticipatory Bail Petition No. 244 of 2024 by learned Principal District & Sessions Judge at Seraikella in connection with Nimdih P.S. Case No. 0019 of 2024 registered under Sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act and under Sections 25(1-B)(a)/26 of the Arms Act, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella, whereby and whereunder the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant has been rejected. 2. It has been contended on behalf of appellant that it is a case where the order impugned needs to be interfered with reason being that save and except the confessional statement of the co-accused, namely, Basudev Mahato, there is no incriminating material or any overt act has been said to be there even if entire prosecution will be taken into consideration in entirety. 3. It has further been submitted that charge-sheet has already been submitted with respect to the co-accused person, namely, Basudev Mahato and charge has been framed against the co-accused but no nexus has been shown of the present appellant save and except the confessional statement of the co-accused. 4. It has further been submitted that even search has been done in the house of the appellant but no incriminating article has been found attracting offence under Section 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act or Arms Act. 5. Further submission has been made that the appellant is having mining lease issued by the Government of Jharkhand, under the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, as would be evident from annexure 1 to the supplementary affidavit. 6. So far as the criminal antecedents, which are two in number, are concerned submission has been made that first one pertains to offences related to Indian Penal Code and Disaster Management Act; and second criminal antecedent is bailable in nature and in both of the cases the appellant is on bail. 7. 6. So far as the criminal antecedents, which are two in number, are concerned submission has been made that first one pertains to offences related to Indian Penal Code and Disaster Management Act; and second criminal antecedent is bailable in nature and in both of the cases the appellant is on bail. 7. Argument has been advanced by referring to the impugned order wherein there is no consideration of the plea having been taken by learned counsel for the appellant seeking privilege of pre-arrest bail before the learned court and hence, according to learned counsel for the appellant the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law, and as such the privilege of bail in apprehension of arrest is to be granted. 8. While on the other hand, Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, learned A.P.P. appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer for pre-arrest bail by defending the impugned order. 9. Learned A.P.P submits by referring to paragraph 6 of the case diary where co-accused Basudev Mahato has disclosed the culpability of the present appellant and as such submission has been made that it is incorrect on the part of the appellant to take the ground that no overt act said to be committed by the appellant. Therefore, submission has been made that in that view of the matter, the prayer for appellant of pre-arrest bail has been rejected, as such the impugned order may not be interfered with. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by the learned court in the impugned order and the case diary as also the criminal antecedent report of the appellant. 11. This Court has found from the case diary that on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused, namely, Basudev Mahato, name of the appellant has come, who happens to be the staff of the present appellant. 12. The admitted fact herein is that the in course of raid nothing incriminating article has been recovered from the physical or conscious possession of the appellant, as such ingredient of Sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act will not attract. The appellant in order to show bona fide has brought on record by way of filing supplementary affidavit the mining lease granted in his favour by the competent authority of the State Government. 13. Furthermore, there are two criminal antecedents are there. The appellant in order to show bona fide has brought on record by way of filing supplementary affidavit the mining lease granted in his favour by the competent authority of the State Government. 13. Furthermore, there are two criminal antecedents are there. The first one pertains to offences related to Indian Penal Code and Disaster Management Act in which it has been stated that privilege of bail has been allowed; and second criminal antecedent is bailable in nature in which also the appellant is on bail. 14. It needs to refer herein that the principle, which is to be exercised for the purpose of grant of pre-arrest bail has already been dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1 , wherein the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that while considering pre arrest bail Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail or not. 15. It is evident from the aforesaid judgment that the privilege of pre-arrest bail is to be given if on the face of the record no material is available against the applicant and thereby the applicant has been able to make out a prima facie case for grant of privilege of pre-arrest bail. 16. This Court applying the principle, as laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (supra) wherein the principle of pre-arrest has been laid down and on the basis of discussion made hereinabove and coming to the order passed by the learned court has found that the learned court without taking into consideration these facts has passed the impugned order, hence, this Court is of the view that the impugned order needs interference. 17. Accordingly, the 23.07.2024 passed in Anticipatory Bail Petition No. 244 of 2024 is hereby quashed and set aside. 18. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed. 19. In consequence thereof, this Court directs the appellant, above named, shall surrender before the learned court below within a period of four weeks and on his surrender, he may be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 18. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed. 19. In consequence thereof, this Court directs the appellant, above named, shall surrender before the learned court below within a period of four weeks and on his surrender, he may be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- [Ten Thousand] with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella, in connection with Nimdih P.S. Case No. 0019 of 2024, subject to the conditions that the appellant shall co-operate in the investigation failing which the investigation officer will be at liberty to make an application before the concerned court for cancellation of bail; and with a further condition that the appellant shall co-operate in the trial so that there may not be any hindrance in trial and in case of any hindrance, the trial court may proceed in accordance with law. 20. It is made clear that any observation(s) made hereinabove is only for the purpose of consideration of pre-arrest bail having no bearing with the investigation/trial. 21. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of. Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1131 of 2024 22. The instant appeal filed, under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the order dated 23.07.2024 passed in Bail Petition No.114 of 2024 by learned Principal District & Sessions Judge at Seraikella in connection with Nimdih P.S. Case No. 0019 of 2024 registered under Sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act and under Sections 25(1-B)(a)/26 of the Arms Act, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandil, by which, the prayer for regular bail of the appellant, has been rejected. 23. It has been contended on behalf of appellant that although as per First Information Report and the material as has been surfaced in course of investigation as taken in the case diary it is evident that explosive substance has been recovered from the house of the present appellant but the appellant is in custody since 11.05.2024. Furthermore, charge-sheet has already been submitted and charge has already been framed. Learned counsel for the appellant has emphatically submitted that none of the witnesses has been examined. 24. Therefore, submission has been made by learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order requires interference by this Court and the present appeal may be allowed. 25. Furthermore, charge-sheet has already been submitted and charge has already been framed. Learned counsel for the appellant has emphatically submitted that none of the witnesses has been examined. 24. Therefore, submission has been made by learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order requires interference by this Court and the present appeal may be allowed. 25. While on the other hand, Mr. Saket Kumar, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail since as per learned State counsel incriminating arms and ammunitions as also the explosive substances have been recovered from the possession of the appellant. 26. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by the learned court in the impugned order as also the case diary. 27. It is evident from the FIR and the materials collected in course of investigation that arms and ammunitions as also the explosive substances have been recovered from the possession of the appellant. however, the appellant is in custody since 11.05.2024. Furthermore, charge-sheet has already been submitted and charge has already been framed and the case is at the stage of evidence and none of the witnesses have been examined as per the statement made by the appellant. 28. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.07.2024 passed in Bail Petition No.114 of 2024 by learned Sessions Judge at Seraikella in connection with Nimdih P.S. Case No. 0019 of 2024, is hereby quashed and set aside. 29. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed. 30. In consequence thereof, the appellant, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandil in connection with Nimdih P.S. Case No. 0019 of 2024, subject to the conditions that the appellant shall co-operate in the trial and shall not absent himself on the date fixed without any cogent cause; and shall not commit offence of the like nature. In failure, the learned court shall have liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law so that trial be not hindered and further that one of the bailors should be close relative of the appellant, which is to be accompanied by affidavit justifying that such bailor is close relative of the appellant. 31. In failure, the learned court shall have liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law so that trial be not hindered and further that one of the bailors should be close relative of the appellant, which is to be accompanied by affidavit justifying that such bailor is close relative of the appellant. 31. It is made clear that any observation(s) made hereinabove is only for the purpose of consideration of bail having no bearing with the trial. 32. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of.