Jharkhand High Court
Pankaj Kumar Singh vs Union Of India Through Nia on 4 November, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:33093-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.770 of 2025
-----
Pankaj Kumar Singh, aged about 50 years old, son of late Shyam Nandan Singh, resident of village -UPG High School, Azad Nagar, Bhuli, PO & PS Bank More, District- Dhanbad.... ... Appellant Versus Union of India through NIA .... ... Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
-------
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar-III, Advocate;
Mr. Sabyasanchi, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Spl.P.P.
------
CAV ON: 16/10/2025 PRONOUNCED ON:04 /11/2025
[Per se: Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.]
1. The present Appeal has been filed under section 21(4) of National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 read with Section 43-D of UAP Act to set-aside the order dated 28.2.2025 passed by AJC-XVI Ranchi- cum-Special Judge NIA, Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application No. 316 of 2025 by which bail of the appellant has been rejected in connection with Special (NIA) Case No. 04 of 2021 dated 9.12.2021, arising out of PS ATS case no. 01/2021 Ranchi, Jharkhand registered under sections 120B of IPC and section 17 CLA Act read with sections 25(1-B)a, 26 and 35 of Arms Act and sections 13,19, 20 and 21 of UA(P)Act 1967.
2. At the outset it needs to refer herein that earlier the appellant had preferred Miscellaneous Cr. Application No. 1133 of 2022 which was rejected vide order dated 16.7.2022, against which the present appellant had preferred an appeal before this Court being Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1387 of 2022 which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 22.2.2023. Thereafter, the appellant had filed Miscellaneous 1 2025:JHHC:33093-DB Criminal Application No. 847 of 2023 before the learned Trial Court which was also rejected on 28.3.2023 and against the said order also the present appellant had filed Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 584 of 2023 before this Court which was dismissed on merit vide order dated 10.8.2023.
3. Thereafter, again the present appellant had preferred an application being Misc. Criminal Application being Misc. Criminal Application No. 672/2024 but the same was again dismissed by the special court vide order dated 08/04/2024 against which the appellant had preferred an appeal before this Court being Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 596 of 2024 which was dismissed on 04/12/2024.
4. Thereafter, again the appellant has preferred an application before the special Court being Misc. Criminal Application No. 316 of 2025 but the same was dismissed by the learned Special Judge vide order dated 28.02.2025 against which the instant appeal has been preferred. Factual Matrix:
5. The prosecution case is based upon the typed report of sub inspector Vishal Pandey of ATS on 14.11.2021. In his typed report SI Vishal Pandey alleged that while investigation of the Tandwa P.S. Case No. 132/2021 he came to know that Avinash Kumar S/o Jairam Sharma and few other persons are supplying arms and ammunitions to miscreants and extremist groups. Thereafter, he lodged Sanha and a team of ATS was constituted. They proceeded for Imamganj, Gaya, Bihar. On 13.11.2021 Avinash Kumar was located, identified and examined during which he admitted that he along with one Rishi Kumar was supplying arms and ammunitions to the armed cadres of CPI (Maoists) and other 2 2025:JHHC:33093-DB terrorist gangs. Then the team proceeded to Benipur village, Salimpur PS Patna, Bihar and identified and apprehended accused Rishi Kumar.
They stated that during the month of September 2021, co-accused Aman Sahu asked Avinash Kumar to arrange live cartridges of INSAS rifle. On getting the instruction, Avinash Kumar in association with accused Rishi Kumar collected live cartridges of 5.56 MM caliber from two persons namely Arun Kumar Singh and Pankaj Kumar Singh, the appellant herein, and embarked to make the delivery to associates of Aman Sahu. However, the ammunitions were not supplied to Aman Sahu gang, as Avinash Kumar was not able to contact the Aman Sahu. So, as a safety precaution the 450 live cartridges of INSAS rifle were hidden beside a tree near the Shiekh Bhikhari Monument, under Ormanjhi PS, Ranchi. Thereafter, on the pointing out of co-accused Avinash Kumar and Rishi Kumar, 450 numbers of 5.56 MM live rounds/ammunitions were recovered beside a tree near Sheikh Bhikhari Memorial, near Chhutupalu Ghati within the jurisdiction of Ormanjhi police station. Based on the recoveries and the examination of the accused, the P.S. ATS, Ranchi has lodged FIR No. 01/2021 dated 14.11.2021 against Avinash Kumar, Rishi Kumar, Pankaj Kumar, the appellant herein, Arun Kumar Singh, Sanjay Kumar Singh, Moshahid Khan and other unknown accused persons.
6. It appears from the record that initially FIR was instituted by the Anti- Terrorist Squad being ATS Ranchi P.S. Case No. 01 of 2021 for commission of offence under Section 120-B of IPC, Section 17 of CLA 3 Act, Section 25(1-b) A/26/35 and Section 13, 19, 20, 21 of U.A.P. Act, 1967.
3
2025:JHHC:33093-DB
7. The Central Government in exercise of power conferred under sub- section (5) of Section 6 read with Section 8 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 vide order no. 11011/73/2021/NIA dated 03.12.2021 directed the NIA to take the investigation.
8. In compliance of the aforesaid order, NIA After lodging of the case, had investigated the case and filed charge-sheet wherein in addition to the above story, as narrated above, allegation against the appellant (arraigned as Accused A-3) has been narrated as follows:
"Investigation has revealed that accused A-3 is closely associated with A-2, A-4 A-5 and he was a conduit between A-2 & A-5, in the supply chain of arms and ammunitions. Investigation has also revealed that during 2021, A-3 got instruction from accused A-5 for procuring INSAS rifle; however, the same could not be arranged at that time. Investigation has also established that A-4 had approached A-3 for selling of his un-licensed Pistols and which is also corroborated by the photographs of a pistol, shared on the WhatsApp. It is also established from the investigation that on following occasions accused A-3 had assisted A-2 in purchasing of ammunitions of 5.56 MM calibre. The details are as under:-
Sl. Period No. of Live Ammunition Amount
No received by A-3
01 Feb 2020 200 Rds of 5.56 MM Rs. 5000/-
02 March 2020 200 Rds of 5.56 MM Rs. 5000/-
03 Sept 2021 450 Rds of 5.56 MM Rs. 10,000/-
9. In addition to above, some photographs of Arms have been extracted from whatsapp messages of the appellant. In consequences of the aforesaid, the present appellant was arrested.
4
2025:JHHC:33093-DB Submissions by the learned counsel for the Appellant:
10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the allegation against the appellant is general and omnibus in nature as nothing incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the appellant. Only on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused, the appellant has been arrested.
11. He has further stated that till date only 19 charge-sheeted witnesses have been examined out of 152 witnesses and, as such, it will take an inordinate length of time in concluding the trial.
12. He has further stated that several accused persons have been granted bail. The appellant is in judicial custody since 29.12.2021, therefore, he may be released on bail.
Submission of the learned counsel for Union of India/NIA:
13. Mr. A.K.Das, the learned Special P.P.(NIA) has vehemently opposed the prayer on the ground that regular bail of the appellant has already been decided on merit vide order dated 10th August, 2023 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 584 of 2023 and also vide order dated 04.12.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 596 of 2024 by the co-
ordinate Bench of this Court, and the same have not been assailed before the higher forum, hence, it is not available for the appellant to renew the same prayer on the merit.
14. Further the learned counsel has submitted that an amount of Rs. 1,46,000/- has been recovered from his house and the appellant was not only found to be acting in blatant contravention of provisions of the Arms Act, but he was also found involved in the criminal conspiracy for 5 2025:JHHC:33093-DB commission of unlawful activities. He has further stated that the appellant had a link with the terrorist organizations and he compromising the security of the country was supplying arms and ammunitions for his personal gains.
15. It has been submitted that initially in the charge-sheet there were 152 witnesses but he has submitted that NIA intends to examine only 86 witnesses out of which 19 witnesses have already been examined. He has further stated that the respondent is taking all necessary steps for conclusion of the trial at the earliest.
16. He has further stated that merely being in custody for about 4 years is not a reasonable ground for grant of bail as it would be a threat to the national security and sovereignty of the nation.
17. He has further submitted that the prayer for bail of other co- accused namely Avinash Kumar @ Chunnu Sharma has also been rejected vide order dated 22.09.2025 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 727 of 2025 and the nexus of the present appellant with the said co-accused has fully been surfaced during investigation, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the other persons have been granted bail by this Court hence the present petitioner is also eligible for the bail on the issue of parity, is not fit to be accepted, hence, the present appellant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
18. He has submitted that since on earlier occasions, the prayer for bail of the appellant was rejected considering the merits of the case, and no fresh ground on point of law or circumstances is available herein 6 2025:JHHC:33093-DB therefore, it is not required to consider the prayer of the appellant for bail.
Analysis
19. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record, the pleadings made on behalf of the appellant as available in Memo of Appeal and the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the National Investigation Agency.
20. It is evident from the factual aspect that the informant Vishal Pandey was investigating Tandwa PS case no. 132/2021, he got information that one of the accused Avinash Kumar was supplying cartridges and ammunitions to members of Naxal outfit and other anti- social gang members. Thereafter he arrested Avinash Kumar and on the basis of his confessional statement name of the present appellant was emerged as a person who supplied 200 cartridges of Insas rifle in the year 2020 to Sanjay Kumar Singh to further supply to Maoist cadres. Thereafter petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody.
21. The present appellant had preferred Misc Criminal application no. 1133/2022 before court for grant of bail but the same has been rejected vide order dated 16.7.2022 against the aforesaid order the present appellant moved before this Court in Criminal appeal (DB) No.1387/2022 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 22.2.2023.
22. It needs to refer herein that the appellant again filed Misc Criminal application no. 847/2023 for regular bail which was again rejected vide order dated 28.3.2023, thereafter petitioner again moved to 7 2025:JHHC:33093-DB this Court by way criminal appeal (DB) No. 584/2023 but the was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 10.8.2023.
23. Thereafter, again the appellant had preferred an application being Misc. Criminal Application No. 672/2024 but the same was again dismissed by the special court vide order dated 08/04/2024 against which the appeal being Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 596 of 2024 has been preferred which was dismissed on merit vide order dated 04.12.2024.
24. Thereafter again the appellant had preferred an application being Misc. Criminal Application being No. 316 of 2025 but the same was again dismissed by the special court vide order dated 28.02.2025 against which the instant appeal has been preferred.
25. At the outset the learned counsel for the respondent NIA raised the issue of maintainability of the instant appeal on the ground that the prayer for bail of the appellant has already been rejected on merits by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court twice vide order 10th August, 2023 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 584 of 2023 and vide order dated 04.12.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 596 of 2024 and the appellant without assailing the aforesaid orders before the higher forum, has preferred the instant appeal.
26. Per contra, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he is agitating the issue of incarceration of about four years of the appellant and further till, date, there is no substantial progress in the trial and few charge-sheeted witnesses have been examined.
27. This Court in order to appreciate the aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel for the parties has gone through the order dated 8 2025:JHHC:33093-DB 04.12.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 596 of 2024 by which the prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, for ready reference the relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid order is being quoted herein which reads as under:
"35. From perusal of the record, it is evident that admittedly, the prayer for bail of the appellant has already been rejected on merit by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order 10th August, 2023 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 584 of 2023, for ready reference the relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid order are being quoted as under:
18. It is evident from the aforesaid paragraphs that the direct complicity of the appellant has been surfaced who was found to be supplying ammunitions to the banned terrorist organization and other terrorist gang including the gang of Aman Sahu (A-10). The arms and ammunition so provided by the accused persons to the armed cadres of CPI (Maoist) and Aman Sahu gang were being used to execute attacks on security forces and for carrying out terrorist activities and also to create terror among the local public, who are involved in government development projects.
20. It is evident from the aforesaid imputation as gathered in course of investigation as referred hereinabove that the complicity of the appellant is very much apparent in getting the supply of the arms and ammunitions from the constable of the CRPF and BSF for its onward transmission by way of selling it to the banned terrorist organization and the extremist gang.
21. It further appears that while analyzing CDR and IPDR that the location of the mobile phones of A-5 and A 9 were found in Ferozpur (Punjab) which according to the investigating agency establishes that A-5 had gone to Ferozpur, Punjab to take supply of the ammunitions. While analyzing the mobile number of A-3, the appellant herein, and A-5, it establishes that they were in contact during the relevant period of delivery, i.e., in the month of July, 2021. While analyzing A-2, A-3 and A-4, it also establishes that they were closely associated.
22. It further appears from paragraph-17.7.03 that the investigation revealed that A-3 was closely associated with A-2, A- 4 and A-5 and were working as a conduit between A-5 and A-2 in 9 2025:JHHC:33093-DB supply chain of arms and ammunitions. It has also been established that A-3 was in process to obtain/purchasing of INSAS rifle from North East.
23. This Court, in view of the aforesaid material gathered in course of investigation against the appellant, is not prima facie satisfied as the material so gathered is untrue."
36. The learned counsel for the appellant has renewed the prayer for bail mainly on the ground of long incarceration of the appellant i.e., of three years and further in trial out of 152 witnesses only 8 charge sheeted witnesses have been examined, as such there is remote chances of case being decided in near future.
37. This Court in order to appreciate the argument advanced on behalf the learned counsel for the parties, is now proceeding to go through the ration laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.A. Najeeb (supra), and further to examine that whether the said judgment is applicable in the fact and circumstances of the instant case or not.
38. In K.A. Najeeb's (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court was confronted with a circumstance wherein except the respondent-accused, other co- accused had already undergone trial and were sentenced to imprisonment of not exceeding eight years therefore the Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the fact that since the respondent accused had already served portion of the maximum imprisonment i.e., more than five years, hence not interfered in the order granting bail.
39. Further, in K.A. Najeeb's case the trial of the respondent-accused was severed from the other co accused owing to his absconding and he was traced back in 2015 and was being separately tried thereafter and the NIA had filed a long list of witnesses that were left to be examined with reference to the said accused.
40. The Hon'ble Apex Court taking in to consideration the huge number of witnesses i.e. 276, put a pin-pointed question therein for reducing the number of witnesses by the investigating agency and when the same has been shown to be not possible then the Hon'ble Apex Court, by taking into consideration the period of custody and there is no likelihood of conclusion of the trial in near future, has not interfered in the order granting bail to the respondent-accused.
41. But in the instant case, as per the averment out of 152 charge- sheeted witnesses 8 witnesses have been examined. Further in the 10 2025:JHHC:33093-DB instant case direct nexus has been shown by the charge-sheet and from the relevant part of charge-sheet which was quoted in the order dated 10.08.2023 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in criminal appeal (DB) No 584/2023 it is evident that the present appellant had supplied 200 cartridges of Insas rifle in the year 2020 to Sanjay Kumar Singh to further supply to Maoist cadres. Further he provided assistance to the armed cadres of CPI Maoist and criminal gang with intention to execute attacks on security forces to create panic and terror amongst local contractors and businessmen.
42. Thus, this Court is of the view that in the facts and circumstances the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex court in Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (supra) will not be applicable in fact and circumstances of instant case.
43. Further the learned counsel for the appellant has also put his reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1945 wherein as per the prosecution case, the appellant's wife was the owner of a building known as Ahmad Palace and that the appellant had clandestinely shown that premises on the first floor of the said building were given on rent to one Athar Parwez - accused no. 1. The allegation is that, the first-floor premises are being used for objectional
44. The Hon'ble Apex Court while taking into consideration the fact that on plain reading of the charge sheet, it is not possible to record a conclusion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the appellant of commission of offences punishable under the UAPA is prima facie true, had enlarged the appellant on bail. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held in paragraph 21 of the said judgment that the rule also means that once a case is made out for the grant of bail, the Court cannot decline to grant bail. If the Courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of our Constitution.
45. This Court is conscious with the fact that personal liberty as enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution has utmost importance but that is to be assessed by carving out the balance in enforcing the law and order.
46. Herein in the case on the basis of investigation it is revealed that appellant has direct nexus with the Maoist and he had supplied 200 11 2025:JHHC:33093-DB cartridges of Insas rifle in the year 2020 to Maoist cadres and it has come during investigation that he had provided assistance to the armed cadres of CPI Maoist and criminal gang with intention to execute attacks on security forces to create panic and terror amongst local contractors and businessmen. But in the aforesaid case i.e. Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, (supra) there is only allegation as per the prosecution against the appellant that appellant's wife was the owner of a building known as Ahmad Palace and that the appellant had clandestinely shown that premises on the first floor of the said building were given on rent to one Athar Parwez - accused no. 1. and the first-floor premises are being used for objectional activities of an organization called Popular Front of India (PFI).
47. Prima facie the said allegation was not found correct by the Hon'ble Apex Court, but in the instant case earlier this Court on merit, vide order dated 10.08.2023 passed in criminal appeal (DB) No 584/2023 while taking into consideration the various paragraph of the charge-sheet has prima facie found the allegation against the present appellant true, as such in the present fact and circumstances of the case the judgment relied upon by the appellant rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India,(supra) is not applicable.
48. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Bhikham Ganjhu @ Deepak Ganjhu in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 297 of 2023, and has submitted that the appellant of the said case remained in custody for less than two years and even then the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court allowed the appeal directing the appellant to release him on bail, as such the present appellant may be enlarged on bail by quashing the impugned order. In the aforesaid context this Court has gone through the said order and from perusal of the same it is evident that in the said case none of the witnesses have been examined and the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 13.09.2022 but apart this consideration the Co-ordinate Bench has considered that there is no recovery from the physical or conscious possession of the appellant rather the appellant has been implicated in this case on the basis of the information received from the confidential source but there is no reference of any name of the villagers as to who has disclosed the name of the appellant.
12
2025:JHHC:33093-DB
49. But in the instant case prima facie the direct nexus of the appellant with the Maoist has been established by the investigating agency which would be evident from the order dated 10.08.2023 as mentioned herein above, thus the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the appellant will not be applicable in the fact of the instant case.
51. It needs to refer herein in the case of Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [(2024) SCC On Line SC 109 the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of UAPA, has formulated the concept that bail is rule and jail is exception. Such observation has been made based upon the principle that a balance is to be maintained in between the personal liberty and the societal impact. The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that the conventional idea in bail jurisprudence vis- à-vis ordinary penal offences that the discretion of Courts must tilt in favour of the oft quoted phrase - "bail is the rule, jail is the exception‟ - unless circumstances justify otherwise - does not find any place while dealing with bail applications under UAP Act and the 'exercise‟ of the general power to grant bail under the UAP Act is severely restrictive in scope.
52. In the case of Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 6 SCC 591 the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that any form of deprival of liberty results in breach of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and must be justified on the ground of being reasonable, following a just and fair procedure and such deprival must be proportionate in the facts of a given case,------
53. Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid settled position of law that any form of deprival of liberty must be justified on the ground of being reasonable, following a just and fair procedure and such deprival must be proportionate in the facts of a given case. Conclusion
54. Considering the aforesaid ratio and its applicability in the instant case it is evident that Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 10.08.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 584 of 2023 while rejecting the prayer for bail of the present appellant has already found that the alleged allegation against the present appellant has substance which would be evident from the various paragraph of the said order as quoted hereinabove.
55. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid discussion this Court is of the view that since the Co-ordinate Bench has already taken a view while 13 2025:JHHC:33093-DB rejecting the prayer for bail on merit and as such taking into consideration the nature of allegation and nature of gravity and also the involvement of the present appellant as has been taken note by the Co-ordinate Bench at various Paragraph thereof, no interference is required in the impugned order.
56. Therefore, this Court is of the view that no interference is required in the impugned order as also the trial is in progress.
57. Accordingly, the instant appeal being Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 596 of 2024 stands dismissed."
28. Thus, from the aforesaid, it is evident that this Court while rejecting the prayer for bail of the present appellant vide order dated 04.12.2024 has already expressed its view on merits of the case by taking into consideration the settled proposition of law.
29. Now coming to the contention made by the learned counsel for the appellant, wherefrom it appears that no fresh ground has been raised except the ground of custody and personal liberty since the appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 29.12.2021.
30. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer herein that only the long incarceration is not the ground to be looked into for enlarging the accused on bail rather the accusation so made against the accused persons as also societal impact is to be taken care of.
31. It requires to refer herein that this Court while passing the order in the Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 596 of 2024 has taken note of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gurwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while taking into consideration the judgment as rendered in National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019)5 SCC 1 has observed that, the proviso to Sub-section (5) 14 2025:JHHC:33093-DB of Section 43D puts a complete embargo on the powers of the Special Court to release an accused on bail and lays down that if the Court, 'on perusal of the case diary or the report made under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure', is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation, against such person, as regards commission of offence or offences under Chapter IV and/or Chapter VI of the UAP Act is prima facie true, such accused person shall not be released on bail or on his own bond.
32. The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that the conventional idea in bail jurisprudence vis-à-vis ordinary penal offences that the discretion of Courts must tilt in favour of the oft-quoted phrase - 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' - unless circumstances justify otherwise - does not find any place while dealing with bail applications under UAP Act and the 'exercise' of the general power to grant bail under the UAP Act is severely restrictive in scope.
33. In the aforesaid context it has further been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Courts are, therefore, burdened with a sensitive task on hand and in dealing with bail applications under UAP Act, the courts are merely examining if there is justification to reject bail and the 'justifications' must be searched from the case diary and the final report submitted before the Special Court.
34. In the aforesaid background the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the test for rejection of bail is quite plain and Bail must be rejected as a 'rule', if after hearing the public prosecutor and after perusing the final report or Case Diary, the Court arrives at a conclusion that there are 15 2025:JHHC:33093-DB reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations are prima facie true. It has further been observed that it is only if the test for rejection of bail is not satisfied - that the Courts would proceed to decide the bail application in accordance with the 'tripod test' (flight risk, influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence).
35. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled proposition of law which has been reiterated herein, this Court is now adverting to the order dated 28.02.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge NIA Ranchi, in Misc. Criminal Application No. 316 of 2025 which is under challenge herein.
36. The learned court in the said order dated has taken into consideration thatafter investigation NIA submitted charge-sheet against petitioner Pankaj Kumar Singh A-3 under section 120B of the IPC (substantively), section 120B IPC r/w section 25(1AA) and 25 (1B)(a), 26, 29 of Arms Act and section 13, 18, 20, 39 of the UA(P) Act 1967. It has further been taken note that Role of the petitioner Pankaj Kumar Singh A-3 in the chain of arms supply emerged in para 17.7.03 of the first charge-sheet. It appears that Pankaj Kumar Singh A-3 was closely associated with A-2 Rishi Kumar, A-4 Kamendra Singh @ Kamender Singh and A-5 Arun Kumar Singh @ Fauji and he was working as conduit between A-5 and A-2 in the supply chain of arms and ammunitions. It is also disclosed that A-3 was in process to obtain Insas rifle from northeast and petitioner A-3 hatched criminal conspiracy for the commission of unlawful activities. He provided assistance to the armed cadres of CPI Maoist and criminal gang with intention to execute 16 2025:JHHC:33093-DB attacks on security forces and criminal gang with intention to execute attacks to create panic and terror amongst local contractors and businessmen. During investigation in para 17.5.3 of the charge-sheet IO collected evidence that A-3 got instruction from accused A-5 for procuring Insas rifle but the same could not be arranged. Investigation has also established that A-4 has approachedA-3 for selling of his own licensed pistol, which is also corroborated by the photograph of the pistol shared on Whats-app. A-3 has assisted A-2 in purchase of ammunitions of 5.56 MM caliber. In February 2020 and march 2020, he received Rs.5000/- for providing 200 rounds each of 5.56 MM ammunitions and in September 2021 he received Rs.10000/- for providing 450 rounds of 5.56 MM ammunitions.
37. The learned Special Judge NIA at Ranchi has further taken note of the fact that there is direct specific and serious allegation against petitioner that he used to supply arms and ammunition to CPI Maoist cadre and terrorist gang after receiving money. A prima facie case appears to be made out against petitioner which comes under the purview of heinous crime, crime against nation, its unity, integrity, sovereignty and internal security.
38. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that the learned court while rejecting the prayer for bail of the present appellant has taken note culpability of the present appellant along with the settled position of law as rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, therefore it is considered view of this Court that there is no perversity in the order dated 28.02.2025 which has been assailed herein.
17
2025:JHHC:33093-DB
39. Further, herein, the learned counsel for the respondent NIA has submitted at Bar that the trial in the instant case is in progress and number of the witnesses have already been pruned and substantial number of witnesses i.e.19 in number have already been examined.
40. Further , it is relevant to state that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) taking into consideration the ratio of judgment of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713 has observed that mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offences as one involved in the instant case cannot be used as a ground to grant bail, for ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under:
"46. As already discussed, the material available on record indicates the involvement of the appellant in furtherance of terrorist activities backed by members of banned terrorist organisation involving exchange of large quantum of money through different channels which needs to be deciphered and therefore in such a scenario if the appellant is released on bail there is every likelihood that he will influence the key witnesses of the case which might hamper the process of justice. Therefore, mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offences as one involved in the instant case cannot be used as a ground to grant bail. Hence, the aforesaid argument on behalf of the appellant cannot be accepted."
41. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid settled position of law it is evident that mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offences, as one involved in the instant case, cannot be used as a ground to grant bail.
42. Thus, taking into consideration that this Court has earlier expressed its view, on merit, with regard to the prayer for grant of bail of the present appellant as also there is no change in circumstances as no fresh ground has been agitated herein as also taking into consideration 18 2025:JHHC:33093-DB the submission advanced on behalf of the respondent-NIA that the trial is in progress and substantial witnesses have been examined, this Court is of the view that the order impugned dated 28.02.2025 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 316 of 2025 requires no interference.
43. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.
44. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
I agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Jharkhand High Court
Dated: 04 /11/2025
KNR/AFR
Uploaded On- 06.11.2025
19