Jharkhand High Court
Nandlal Swarnkar vs Union Of India Through National ... on 23 April, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:12153-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.241 of 2020
------
Nandlal Swarnkar, aged about 49 years, S/o Late Ram Kishan Soni,
R/o Flat No.106, 1st Floor, Khasra No.289, Northend Tower, 690 feet
Road, Chattarpur, P.O. & P.S. Chattarpur, Delhi
.... .... Appellant
Versus
Union of India through National Investigating Agency, having its
office at N.I.A. Camp office, Quarter No.305, Sector-II, P.O., P.S.-
Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
.... .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Mehta, Advocate
Mr. Shadab Ansari, Advocate
For the NIA : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate
------
C.A.V. on 20.03.2025 Pronounced on 23/04/2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant appeal preferred under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is directed against the order dated 29.01.2020 passed in Misc. Cr. Application No. 1006 of 2019 (Special (NIA) Case No.02 of 2018) corresponding to R.C. No.02/2018/NIA/DLI dated 19.01.2018, arising out of Bero P.S. Case No.67 of 2016 registered for the offence under Sections 212, 213, 414/34 of the I.P.C., Section 17of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, and Sections 13, 17 & 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, whereby and 1 2025:JHHC:12153-DB whereunder, the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been rejected.
Prosecution Case and Factual Matrix
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case leading to this Criminal Appeal is that on 10.11.2016 on receiving secret information, the Informant, namely, Mr. Bindeshwari Das, Officer-in-charge of Bero P.S registered an information received regarding the associates of supremo of PLFI (People's Liberation Front of India an Extremist Organization) depositing ill-gotten money of crime proceeds realized as extortion of levy had sent it through his associates for depositing in the bank account to convert black money into white by a Safari vehicle no.JH01Y-2898 to SBI, Bero, District-Ranchi had informed his superior authorities and proceeded for its verification along with other police officials and reserve guard.
3. It is further alleged that at about 3.15 PM, he reached along with his team at the SBI, Bero Branch, Ranchi and by surrounding the same, waited in ambush to keep vigil upon the suspects.
4. In the meantime, having seen the police party, 3 to 4 persons making hue and cry attempted to flee away with bag and articles carrying in their hand and one of the persons was apprehended from the campus of the bank and three persons were apprehended while boarding on the Safari vehicle 2 2025:JHHC:12153-DB No.JH01Y-2898.
5. On query those persons disclosed their name as co-accused Binod Kumar, Chandra Shekhar Kumar, Nand Kishore Mahto and Mohan Kumar. It is further alleged that the informant conducted search of these persons in presence of independent witnesses present there then one bag having 16 bundles of currency note of Rs.1000/- total amounting Rs. 16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen lakhs) was recovered from possession of co- accused Binod Kumar and one Samsung Mobile Phone with SIM No.9934100909 was recovered from his right hand. It is further stated that the amount of Rs.38,000/- in the denomination of Rs.1000/- currency notes of 38 pieces recovered from the possession of co-accused Chandra Shekhar Kumar along with deposit slip of SBI for various dates and one deposit slip of Rs.16,00,000/- and two mobile phones.
6. It is also alleged that 09 bundles of RS.1000/- currency notes total amounting to Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs) was recovered from the possession of co-accused Nand Kishore Mahto. It is further alleged that two mobile set phones was recovered from the possession of co-accused Mohan Kumar, Rajesh Kumar and thereafter all these articles along with Safari vehicle No.JH01Y 2898 possessed by accused persons and they were about to run away from the spot have been seized and on demand those persons were unable to show any 3 2025:JHHC:12153-DB document and the co-accused Binod Kumar confessed to him that the PLFI Supremo Dinesh Gope had instructed him by Mobile Phone after the Central Government Policy of demonetization to deposit those levied/extorted amount of Rs.25,38,000/- in the name of Petrol Pump of co-accused Chandrashekhar Kumar son of co-accused Nand Kishore Mahto who is the father-in-law of said Dinesh Gope and he further confessed that levied/extorted money was given by PLFI extremist for getting it converted as white money by depositing in the name of the said petrol pump. It has been further stated that in absence of any valid paper, all the said articles were seized in presence of independent witnesses and seizure list was prepared.
7. During the course of its verification on 10.11.2016 another lot of money of Rs.17,26,000/- was deposited in the A/c No.35650233071 of Petrol Pump M/s Rekha Petroleum and again they were going to deposit the seized amount of Rupees Sixteen Lakhs in the same account but the owner of M/s Rekha Petroleum was unable to give any satisfactory reply during course of verification. On these grounds the informant claimed that the these accused persons were involved in the extortion of levied amount and such ill-gotten money was being converted by hardcore outlawed PLFI extremist people which is dangerous to the National Interest and helpful for the extremist 4 2025:JHHC:12153-DB organization.
8. Accordingly, the police officer informant lodged the FIR being Bero P.S. Case no. 67 of 2016 under Sections 212, 213, 414/34 of the I.P.C., Section 17of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, and Sections 13, 17 & 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act against the six accused persons including the four arrested persons, namely Binod Kumar, Chandra Shekhar Kumar, Nand Kishore Mahto and Mohan Kumar.
9. After investigation, the local Police filed charge-sheet in the afore detailed case vide Charge-sheet No. 01/2017 dated 09.01.2017 in the court of Learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi against the accused Vinod Kumar @ Binod Kumar, Chandrashekhar Kumar, Nand Kishor Mahto and Mohan Kumar & Rajesh Kumar under sections 212, 213, 414 and 34 of IPC, Section 13, 17 and 40 of the DA(P) Act-1967 and section 17(11) of the CLA Act, 1908 however the investigation was kept open to unravel the larger conspiracy pertaining to the matter.
10. Thereafter, the National Investigation agency took up the case of investigation in compliance to Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs Order No.11011/51/2017-IS,IV dated 16.1.2018 and the said case was re-numbered as RC-02/2018/NIA/DLI dated 19.1.2018.
5
2025:JHHC:12153-DB
11. The NIA in course of investigation, ample incriminating materials found against this present appellant Nandlal Swarnkar and accordingly he was taken in to Judicial custody on 21.05.2019, due to his alleged involvement in the commission of the alleged offence.
12. After conducting further investigation NIA filed First Supplementary charge sheet against 11 accused persons namely 1) Vinod Kumar @ Binod Kumar, 2) Chandrashekhar Kumar, 3) Nand Kishor Mahto, 4) Mohan Kumar & Rajesh Kumar, 5) Dinesh Gope, 6) Sumant Kumar, 7) Nandlal Swarnkar (present appellant), 8) Chandrashekhar Singh, 9) Arun Gope, 10) Navinbhai Patel, 11) Jitender Kumar on 21.10.2019. It would be pertinent to mention that in order to unearth the larger criminal conspiracy, further investigation is continuing u/s 173(8) CrPC in the instant case.
13. Cognizance of the said offence has been taken by the court concerned. Consequently, the above-named appellant had preferred the regular bail application vide Misc. Cr. Application No. 1006 of 2019 before the NIA Special Court, Ranchi but the same has been rejected vide order dated 29.01.2020, against which, the present appeal has been filed.
Argument advanced on behalf of the learned senior counsel for the Appellant:
14. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned 6 2025:JHHC:12153-DB order on the following grounds: -
(I)The appellant has falsely been implicated in the instant case without any valid evidence of his involvement in the alleged commission of crime attracting the ingredients of Section 21 of the U.A.(P) Act and hence, the other penal provision as contained in the other alleged Act is also not made out.
(II)The learned Court below has failed to consider that during investigation the NIA collected lot of information through examination /screening of bank accounts/transaction details and short listed over two dozen suspected bank accounts.
However, no such recovery was made in respect of the appellant. No cash was ever recovered from the possession of the appellant. Neither any bank transaction has been pointed out by the NIA, nor the NIA has been able to show any nexus connecting the appellant with the allegedly dubious shell companies.
(III)Though other accused such as Sumant Kumar (A-7) and Jitender Kumar (A-11) have been shown as Owners / Directors of the alleged dubious shell companies however the name of the appellant is not even remotely been shown to have any connection with such bank account or transactions. (IV)The appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 21.05.2019 and having no criminal antecedent, therefore, as per the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the 7 2025:JHHC:12153-DB case of Union of India Vrs. K.A. Najeeb, reported in [(2021) 1 SCR, the appeal of the appellant may be allowed.
15. The ground of parity has also been taken by citing instance of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.514 of 2020, by which Jitendra Kumar has been directed to be released on bail vide order dated 08.05.2023.
16. The learned counsel for the appellant has further taken the reference of the order dated 03.10.2023 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 201 of 2020 by which accused persons namely Binod Kumar, Chandra Shekhar Kumar, Nand Kishore Mahto, Mohan Kumar has been granted bail.
17. Learned senior counsel for the appellant, on the aforesaid premise, has submitted that the learned court ought to have considered that aspect of the matter, while considering the prayer for regular bail, but having not been considered, therefore, the impugned orders need to be interfered with. Argument advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for Respondent-N.I.A.
18. Per contra, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the respondent-NIA has taken the following grounds by defending the impugned order: -
(i) The appellant was part of a module which was responsible for channelizing illegitimate money through legitimate means and was 8 2025:JHHC:12153-DB working for the PLFI Supremo Dinesh Gope and on the basis of C.D.R. analysis as well as the disclosure of the co-accused persons and the statement of the witnesses, that there was a nexus between all the accused persons.
(ii) Vide order dated 21.03.2024 the Coordinate Bench of this Court had denied the privilege of bail to another-co-accused, namely, Fuleshwar Gope in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 767 of 2022 and the said order has been affirmed vide order dated 03.02.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).7703/2024 by which prayer for bail of the said appellant has been rejected.
(iii)The observation as has been made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.A. Najeeb (Supra) will not be applicable in view of the fact that the trial is at its fag end and prosecution witnesses have already been closed herein and Statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has already been recorded and now the case is at the stage of defence. But the defence is not producing their witnesses not only for one date, rather, for last six dates, no defence witnesses have come, therefore, the appellant cannot be allowed to take the ground of pending trial once they are avoiding to produce their defence witnesses.
(iv)No individual application has been filed by the present appellant for producing the defence witness.
(v) It has been contended that the prosecution has already 9 2025:JHHC:12153-DB examined 113 witnesses and further the applicability of the judgment rendered in the case of K.A. Najeeb (Supra) therefore, will not be applicable in view of the fact enumerated in the said case where the fact of the case is different.
(vi)Further, the present appeal has been filed in the year 2020 but if the order sheets will be taken into consideration only adjournments have been taken for more than four years and now, they are taking the ground of long incarceration without keeping the present appeal pending filed for consideration of bail under Section 21(4) of the N.I.A Act, 2008.
(vii) The question of applicability of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, therefore, in the present facts and circumstances of the case will not be applicable due to conduct of the present appellant who has kept the present appeal pending for more than four years.
(viii) Learned counsel for the NIA therefore has submitted that the order which has been passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court by which other co-accused has been enlarged on bail, will not give any aid to the appellant in view of the conduct of the present appellant itself in not allowing the trial to be concluded by not producing the defence witnesses.
(ix)The case of the one of the co-accused persons whose instance has also been taken on behalf of the appellant, i.e., in the case of Jitendra Kumar, appellant in Cr.Appeal (DB) 514 of 2020 10 2025:JHHC:12153-DB has been declared to be approver. The said approver has given the true disclosure about the conduct of all the accomplishment including the present appellant.
19. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the respondent-NIA, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the present appeal is fit to be dismissed.
Analysis
20. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the finding recorded by learned Court in the impugned order as also the charge-sheet.
21. This Court, before proceeding to examine as to whether the appellant has been able to make out a prima facie case for enlarging him on bail, deems it fit and proper to discuss some settled proposition of law and the relevant provisions of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1967).
22. The main objective of the Act 1967 is to make powers available for dealing with activities directed against the integrity and sovereignty of India. As per Preamble, Act 1967 has been enacted to provide for the more effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of individuals and associations and dealing with terrorist activities and for matters connected therewith. Therefore, the aim and object of enactment of UAPA is also to provide for more effective prevention of certain unlawful activities.
11
2025:JHHC:12153-DB
23. To achieve the said object and purpose of effective prevention of certain unlawful activities the Parliament in its wisdom has provided that where an association is declared unlawful by a notification issued under Section 3, a person, who is and continues to be a member of such association shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, and shall also be liable to fine.
24. Clause (m) of Section 2 of the 1967 Act defines "terrorist organization". It is defined as an organization listed in the First Schedule. CPI (Maoist) has been listed at Item no. 34 in the First Schedule. Chapters III onwards of the 1967 Act incorporate various offences. Chapter IV has the title "punishment for terrorist act". Clause
(k) of Section 2 provides that "terrorist act" has the meaning assigned to it under Section 15 and the terrorist act includes an act which constitutes an offence within the scope of, and as defined in any of the treaties specified in the Second Schedule.
25. Further section 10(a)(i) of Act 1967 provides that where an association is declared unlawful by a notification issued under Section 3 which has become effective under sub-section (3) of that Section, a person, who is continues to be a member of such association shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine therefore, so long as Section 10(a)(i) stands a person who is or continues to be a member of such association shall be liable to be punished.
12
2025:JHHC:12153-DB
26. As per mandate of section 13 of the Act 1967 who takes part in or commits, or advocates, abets, advises or incites the commission of, any unlawful activity, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
27. The "terrorist act" has been defined under Section 2(k) has the meaning assigned to it in Section 15. Section 15 contains the activities which will be treated to be a "terrorist act". Section 15 reads as under :
"15. Terrorist act.--4(1) Whoever does any act with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security, economic security, or sovereignty of India or with intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India or in any foreign country,--
(a) by using bombs, dynamite or other explosive substances or inflammable substances or firearms or other lethal weapons or poisonous or noxious gases or other chemicals or by any other substances (whether biological radioactive, nuclear or otherwise) of a hazardous nature or by any other means of whatever nature to cause or likely to cause--
(i) death of, or injuries to, any person or persons; or
(ii) loss of, or damage to, or destruction of, property; or
(iii) disruption of any supplies or services essential to the life of the community in India or in any foreign country; or (iiia) damage to, the monetary stability of India by way of production or smuggling or circulation of high quality counterfeit Indian paper currency, coin or of any other material; or]
(iv) damage or destruction of any property in India or in a foreign country used or intended to be used for the defence of India or in connection with any other purposes of the Government of India, any State Government or any of their agencies; or
(b) overawes by means of criminal force or the show of criminal force or attempts to do so or causes death of any public functionary or attempts to cause death of any public functionary;
or 13 2025:JHHC:12153-DB
(c) detains, kidnaps or abducts any person and threatens to kill or injure such person or does any other act in order to compel the Government of India, any State Government or the Government of a foreign country or an international or inter- governmental organisation or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act; or commits a terrorist act. [Explanation.--For the purpose of this sub-section,--
(a) "public functionary" means the constitutional authorities or any other functionary notified in the Official Gazette by the Central Government as public functionary;
(b) "high quality counterfeit Indian currency" means the counterfeit currency as may be declared after examination by an authorised or notified forensic authority that such currency imitates or compromises with the key security features as specified in the Third Schedule.] (2) The terrorist act includes an act which constitutes an offence within the scope of, and as defined in any of the treaties specified in the Second Schedule.
28. As per the provision of Section 15, whoever has acted with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security, economic security, or sovereignty of India or with intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India or in any foreign country would be covered under the definition of "terrorist act". This provision, therefore, stipulates that any activity with an intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror will come under the fold of terrorist act if done to threaten the unity, integrity, security, sovereignty of India or economic security, which has been inserted by way of Act 3 of 2013 with effect from 01.02.2013.
29. Section 17 provides punishment for raising funds for terrorist act which reads as under :
"17. Punishment for raising funds for terrorist act.--14
2025:JHHC:12153-DB Whoever, in India or in a foreign country, directly or indirectly, raises or provides funds or collects funds, whether from a legitimate or illegitimate source, from any person or persons or attempts to provide to, or raises or collects funds for any person or persons, knowing that such funds are likely to be used, in full or in part by such person or persons or by a terrorist organisation or by a terrorist gang or by an individual terrorist to commit a terrorist act, notwithstanding whether such funds were actually used or not for commission of such act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.--For the purpose of this section,--
(a) participating, organising or directing in any of the acts stated therein shall constitute an offence;
(b) raising funds shall include raising or collecting or providing funds through production or smuggling or circulation of high quality counterfeit Indian currency; and
(c) raising or collecting or providing funds, in any manner for the benefit of, or, to an individual terrorist, terrorist gang or terrorist organisation for the purpose not specifically covered under section 15 shall also be construed as an offence.
30. It is evident from the contents of Section 17 of the Act, 1967 that whoever, in India or in a foreign country, directly or indirectly, raises or provides funds or collects funds, whether from a legitimate or illegitimate source, from any person or persons or attempts to provide to, or raises or collects funds for any person or persons, knowing that such funds are likely to be used, in full or in part by such person or persons or by a terrorist organisation or by a terrorist gang or by an individual terrorist to commit a terrorist act, notwithstanding whether such funds were actually used or not for commission of such act, the same would be covered under the aforesaid provision. Meaning 15 2025:JHHC:12153-DB thereby, raising of funds directly or indirectly to commit a terrorist act by a terrorist organization or by terrorist gang or by an individual terrorist, irrespective of the fact whether this was actually used for commission of such act, would be punishable under Section 17.
31. Sub-section (c) of Section 17 of the Act, 1967 enlarges the scope of the terrorist act since the same provides that any act for the benefit of an individual terrorist, terrorist gang or terrorist organisation even if not specifically covered under Section 15 shall also be construed as an offence.
32. Further, Section 21 stipulates punishment for holding proceeds of terrorism wherein it has been stipulated that whoever knowingly holds any property derived or obtained from commission of any terrorist act or acquired through the terrorist fund shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
33. At this juncture it will be purposeful to discuss the core of Section 43(d)(5) of the Act 1967 which mandates that the person shall not be released on bail if the court is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations made are prima facie true apart from the other offences the appellant is accused of committing offences under Sections 17, 18 and 21 of the UA(P) Act, 1967.
34. The requirement as stipulated under Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act, 1967 in the matter of grant of regular bail fell for 16 2025:JHHC:12153-DB consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, [(2019) 5 SCC 1] wherein at paragraph 23 it has been held by interpreting the expression "prima facie true" as stipulated under Section 43D(5) of the Act, 1967 which would mean that the materials/evidence collated by the investigation agency in reference to the accusation against the accused concerned in the First Information Report, must prevail until contradicted and overcome or disproved by other evidence, and on the face of it, shows the complicity of such accused in the commission of the stated offence. It has further been observed that it must be good and sufficient on its face to establish a given fact or the chain of facts constituting the stated offence, unless rebutted or contradicted. The degree of satisfaction is lighter when the Court has to opine that the accusation is "prima facie true", as compared to the opinion of the accused "not guilty" of such offence as required under the other special enactments. For ready reference, paragraph 23 of the aforesaid judgment is required to be quoted herein which reads hereunder as :-
"23. By virtue of the proviso to sub-section (5), it is the duty of the Court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the accused is prima facie true or otherwise. Our attention was invited to the decisions of this Court, which has had an occasion to deal with similar special provisions in TADA and MCOCA. The principle underlying those decisions may have some bearing while considering the prayer for bail in relation to the offences under the 1967 Act as well. Notably, under the special enactments such as TADA, MCOCA and the Narcotic 17 2025:JHHC:12153-DB Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the Court is required to record its opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is "not guilty" of the alleged offence. There is a degree of difference between the satisfaction to be recorded by the Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is "not guilty" of such offence and the satisfaction to be recorded for the purposes of the 1967 Act that there are reasonable 11 grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is "prima facie" true. By its very nature, the expression "prima facie true" would mean that the materials/evidence collated by the investigating agency in reference to the accusation against the accused concerned in the first information report, must prevail until contradicted and overcome or disproved by other evidence, and on the face of it, shows the complicity of such accused in the commission of the stated offence. It must be good and sufficient on its face to establish a given fact or the chain of facts constituting the stated offence, unless rebutted or contradicted. In one sense, the degree of satisfaction is lighter when the Court has to opine that the accusation is "prima facie true", as compared to the opinion of the accused "not guilty" of such offence as required under the other special enactments. In any case, the degree of satisfaction to be recorded by the Court for opining that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the accused is prima facie true, is lighter than the degree of satisfaction to be recorded for considering a discharge application or framing of charges in relation to offences under the 1967 Act...."
35. It is, thus, evident from the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Investigation Agency vs. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (Supra) that it is the bounden duty of the Court to apply its mind to examine the entire materials on record for 18 2025:JHHC:12153-DB the purpose of satisfying itself, whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused or not.
36. Further It is settled proposition of law that at the stage of granting or non-granting of the bail, the Court is merely expected to record a finding on the basis of broad probabilities regarding the involvement of the accused in the commission of the stated offence or otherwise and the elaborate examination or dissection of the evidence is not required to be done at this stage.
37. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court by setting out propounding the law in the same case of National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (supra), has observed that the elaborate examination or dissection of the evidence is not required to be done at this stage and the Court is merely expected to record a finding on the basis of broad probabilities regarding the involvement of the accused in the commission of the stated offence or otherwise. For ready reference paragraph 24 and 25 of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted herein under:-
"24. A priori, the exercise to be undertaken by the Court at this stage--of giving reasons for grant or non-grant of bail--is markedly different from discussing merits or demerits of the evidence. The elaborate examination or dissection of the evidence is not required to be done at this stage. The Court is merely expected to record a finding on the basis of broad probabilities regarding the involvement of the accused in the commission of the stated offence or otherwise.
25. From the analysis of the impugned judgment, it appears to us that the High Court has ventured into an area of examining the merits and demerits of the evidence. For, it noted that the 19 2025:JHHC:12153-DB evidence in the form of statements of witnesses under Section 161 are not admissible. Further, the documents pressed into service by the investigating agency were not admissible in evidence. It also noted that it was unlikely that the document had been recovered from the residence of Ghulam Mohammad Bhatt till 16-8-2017 (para 61 of the impugned judgment). Similarly, the approach of the High Court in completely discarding the statements of the protected witnesses recorded under Section 164 CrPC, on the specious ground that the same was kept in a sealed cover and was not even perused by the Designated Court and also because reference to such statements having been recorded was not found in the charge- sheet already filed against the respondent is, in our opinion, in complete disregard of the duty of the Court to record its opinion that the accusation made against the accused concerned is prima facie true or otherwise. That opinion must be reached by the Court not only in reference to the accusation in the FIR but also in reference to the contents of the case diary and including the charge-sheet (report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.) and other material gathered by the investigating agency during investigation."
38. It is, thus, evident that the exercise to be undertaken by the court at this stage of granting bail of giving reasons for grant or non- grant of bail that is markedly different from discussing merits or demerits of the evidence. The elaborate examination or dissection of the evidence is not required to be done at this stage. Rather, the Court is merely expected to record a finding on the basis of broad probabilities regarding the involvement of the accused in the commission of the stated offence or otherwise.
39. Further it is the duty of the Court to record its opinion that the accusation made against the accused concerned is prima facie true or 20 2025:JHHC:12153-DB otherwise and such opinion must be reached by the Court not only in reference to the accusation in the FIR but also in reference to the contents of the case diary and including the charge-sheet (report under Section 173 CrPC) and other material gathered by the investigating agency during investigation. Reference in this regard may be taken from the Judgment as rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2005) 5 SCC 294. For ready reference, the following paragraph of the aforesaid Judgment is being quoted herein under:-
"46. The duty of the court at this stage is not to weigh the evidence meticulously but to arrive at a finding on the basis of broad probabilities. However, while dealing with a special statute like MCOCA having regard to the provisions contained in sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the Act, the court may have to probe into the matter deeper so as to enable it to arrive at a finding that the materials collected against the accused during the investigation may not justify a judgment of conviction. The findings recorded by the court while granting or refusing bail undoubtedly would be tentative in nature, which may not have any bearing on the merit of the case and the trial court would, thus, be free to decide the case on the basis of evidence adduced at the trial, without in any manner being prejudiced thereby."
40. The hon'ble Apex Court in a very recent judgment rendered in Gurwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 109 while taking in to consideration of the judgment as rendered in the National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (supra) and Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (supra) has 21 2025:JHHC:12153-DB observed that, the proviso to Sub-section (5) 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.
41. 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.
42. 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.
43. 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 22 2025:JHHC:12153-DB 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 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).
44. For ready reference, following paragraphs of the aforesaid Judgment are being quoted herein under:
"27. A bare reading of Sub-section (5) of Section 43D shows that apart from the fact that Sub-section (5) bars a Special Court from releasing an accused on bail without affording the Public Prosecutor an opportunity of being heard on the application seeking release of an accused on bail, the proviso to Sub-section (5) of Section 43D puts a complete embargo on the powers of the Special Court to release an accused on bail. It 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. It is interesting to note that there is no analogous provision traceable in any other statute to the one found in Section 43D(5) of the UAP Act. In that sense, the language of bail limitation adopted therein remains unique to the UAP Act.
28. 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 23 2025:JHHC:12153-DB Act. The 'exercise' of the general power to grant bail under the UAP Act is severely restrictive in scope. The form of the words used in proviso to Section 43D (5)- 'shall not be released' in contrast with the form of the words as found in Section 437(1) CrPC - 'may be released' - suggests the intention of the Legislature to make bail, the exception and jail, the rule.
29. The courts are, therefore, burdened with a sensitive task on hand. In dealing with bail applications under UAP Act, the courts are merely examining if there is justification to reject bail. The 'justifications' must be searched from the case diary and the final report submitted before the Special Court. The legislature has prescribed a low, 'prima facie' standard, as a measure of the degree of satisfaction, to be recorded by Court when scrutinizing the justifications [materials on record]. This standard can be contrasted with the standard of 'strong suspicion', which is used by Courts while hearing applications for 'discharge-- ---"
45. In this background, the test for rejection of bail is quite plain. 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 reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations are prima facie true. 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). This position is made clear by Sub-section (6) of Section 43D, which lays down that the restrictions, on granting of bail specified in Sub-section (5), are in addition to the restrictions under the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law for the time being in force on grant of bail. 24
2025:JHHC:12153-DB
46. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment after textual reading of Section 43 D(5) UAP Act, has formulated the guideline which was summarized in the form of a twin-prong test. For ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted herein under:
"31. On a textual reading of Section 43 D(5) UAP Act, the inquiry that a bail court must undertake while deciding bail applications under the UAP Act can be summarized in the form of a twin-prong test:
1) Whether the test for rejection of the bail is satisfied?
1.1 Examine if, prima facie, the alleged 'accusations' make out an offence under Chapter IV or VI of the UAP Act 1.2 Such examination should be limited to case diary and final report submitted under Section 173 CrPC;
2) Whether the accused deserves to be enlarged on bail in light of the general principles relating to grant of bail under Section 439 CrPC ('tripod test')?"
47. Further, it is settled proposition of law that at the stage of granting or non-granting of the bail, the Court is merely expected to record a finding on the basis of broad probabilities regarding the involvement of the accused in the commission of the stated offence or otherwise and the elaborate examination or dissection of the evidence is not required to be done at this stage.
48. Further, it is the duty of the Court to record its opinion that the accusation made against the accused concerned is prima facie true or otherwise and such opinion must be reached by the Court not only in reference to the accusation in the FIR but also in reference to the 25 2025:JHHC:12153-DB contents of the charge-sheet and other material gathered by the investigating agency during investigation.
49. This Court, on the basis of the aforesaid position of law and the factual aspect as has been gathered against the appellant is proceeding to examine as to whether the accusation against the appellant is prima facie true as compared to the opinion of accused not guilty by taking into consideration the material collected in course of investigation.
50. The charge-sheet has been appended as Annexure to the main petition and it is evident from the charge-sheet that the appellant has been charge-sheeted accused (A-8) of the instant case.
51. It is evident from the perusal of charge-sheet that NIA in his investigation found that the present appellant (A-8) on the direction of Dinesh Gope (A-6), knowingly held the amount derived/collected through extortion/Levy by PLFI and channelized it into the bank account. For ready reference the relevant paragraphs of the 1st supplementary charge-sheet are being quoted herein under:
17.8 Investigation into the criminal conspiracy hatched among the accused persons for channelizing the extorted money of PLFI into legitimate means by depositing in the shell companies.
Besides the collection of the extorted/levy amount, Dinesh Gope (A-6) in investing the extorted money in the dubious shell companies, formed as part of the larger (conspiracy) plan and on his directions to his associates/members of PLFI, for channelizing it in the alleged legal manner. It is pertinent to mention here, for this purpose, Dinesh Gope (A-6) formed various modules to operate for furtherance of his unlawful 26 2025:JHHC:12153-DB activities. Initially, extorted levy amount was getting converted through A-1 to A-4 and post arrest of A-1 to A5, he (A-6) assigned the same task to another module having the same Modus Operandi/ intention, with the association/under the leadership of A-7 A-7 was holding the post of Director in Bhavya Engicon Pvt. Ltd, Shiv Aadi Shakti Minerals Pvt. Ltd, with the purpose to disguise his actual intention with the partnership of Shakuntala Kumari, alleged second wife of Dinesh Gope (A-6). After getting funds in cash directly from Dinesh Gope (A-6), Sumant Kumar (A-7) either himself or with active association of Arun Gope (A-10) deposited extorted/levy amount in the accounts of the above dubious shell companies. Sumant Kumar (A-7) with the close association of (A-11) hatched the criminal conspiracy in the name of alleged surrender of Dinesh Gope (A-
6), self-styled Chief of PLFI with the association of A-8, A-9 & A- 12 and arranged/held meeting with the political leaders. As per the pian of A-6 & PLFI, A-7 along with his associates were directly, deeply involved in the larger conspiracy and in the commission of the instant crime and were channelizing the extorted/levy amount into alleged legitimate means by depositing the same in the accounts of family members/close associates as well as the firms owned by A-7 or having partnership with them.
17.11) Investigation in respect of transfer of extorted money Rs.48 Lakhs transferred from Ranchi to New Delhi by A-7 & A-11 on dated 21.05.2018 and subsequently received on 22.05.2018 through non-banking Channel and further holding by A-8, A-9, A-11 & A-12.
Investigation has established that on 21.05.2018, Sumant Kumar and Jitender Kumar were present at Ranchi. He (A-7) sent his employee/driver namely Badal Sani @ Brajesh Soni with direction to deliver a bag containing Rs. 48 lakhs at the shop of Prasann Kumar Jain (Hawala Operator), simultaneously A7&A 11 got in touch with Prasann Kumar Jain using the mobile phone of A-11 It is established that Prasann Kumar Jain had sent seral number depicted on a ten rupee note as a token of confirmation which was be used by A-7 & A-11 at the time of receipt of transferred money at Panipat. Further, A-7 & A-11 27 2025:JHHC:12153-DB moved to Delhi and subsequently received Rs. 48 Lakhs from Suraj Kumer ¡Hawala Operator) on showing the pre decided serial number of the ten rupee note at Panipat on 22.05.2018 Further, the same amount was brought to New Delhi by A-7 & A-11 along with A-9 in the vehicle of Hotel Lee-Seasons, Mahipalpur, New Delhi and the above extorted money was further been handed over to Nandlal Swarnkar Nandlal Soni (A-
8) and Navinbhai Jayantibhai Patel (A-12) in furtherance of the activities of PLFI as per larger conspiracy and plan of PLFI. Part of the said amount has been recovered at various stages of investigation. After analyzing the CDRs of the above said persons, it has been established that accused A-7, A-8, A-9, A- 11 & A-12 were in constant touch with one another to execute the plan of PLFI Deposition of statement u/s 164 CrPC of the independent witnesses to be cited (PW 4. PW 39 PW 56, PW-65, PW-67, PW-68, PW-77, PW-79, PW 100, PW-127) before the Hon'ble Court:
During the course of investigation, independent witnesses cites as PW-4, PW-19, PW 56, PW-63, PW 57, PW-68, PW-77, PW- 79 PW-100 and PW-127 deposed in their respective statements u/s 164 CrPC before the Ld. Designated Court at Ranchi, in which it is established that A-6 is Self-styled Chief of terrorist gang PLFI and under his command, his gang members/operatives used to extort levy from contractors/businessmen engaged in development projects etc. A-6 used this levy amount for purchasing the arms and ammunitions and for expansion of his armed cadre of PLFI and raised funds for the terrorist gang. As along with the co-
conspirators and with association of A7, A8, A9, A-10, A-11 and A 12 were channelizing the extorted money, collected in the form of extortion/Levy by him and by the operatives of PLFI, which were derived and obtained by PLFI operatives from commission of terrorist acts (levy, extortion) and acquired through the terrorist fund and hatched the criminal conspiracy As part of larger conspiracy, A-6 formed dubious shell companies with', the co-accused/conspirator namely Sumant Kumar (A-7). As part of larger conspiracy/plan of PLFI as well of 28 2025:JHHC:12153-DB A-6 A-7, have criminally conspired with A-8, A9, A-10, A-11 & A- 12, for channelzing the extorted money into alleged legitimate means/alleged business.
17.18) Role of A-8: it is established that A-8 was involved in receiving the funds, collected through extortion of Levy by Dinesh Gope (A-6), who is a terrorist and Self-styled Chief of PLFI (People's Liberation Front of India). As per the plan of PL5t and on the behest of PLFI Self-styled Chief Dinesh Gope (A-6) and Samant Kumar (A7), the A-S, with the association of A-7, A9, A 11 and A-12 knowingly belt the amount which was derived or obtained by the operatives of PLFI and Dinesh Gope from commission of terrorist act levy/extortion or acquired through the terrorist find and further channelized the extorted money through legitimate means and arranged/attended meeting for criminal conspiracy. Accused Nandlal Swarnkar Nandlal Soni (A-8), by personating represented himself as a senior officer in Prime Minister's office (PMO) and dishonestly cheated by receiving the money, knowingly held the amount derived/collected through extortion/levy of terrorist gang/unlawful association PLFI, proscribed by Government of Jharkhand, assisted/arranged meetings with the political leaders in the name of alleged surrender of A-6 and hatched criminal conspiracy with the members of the terrorist gang ie. A- 7 and A-9 including A-11, A-12 and others with intention to make away with amount which he knows that amount which is being held by him is extorted money/stolen property. 17.29) Offences established against Nandlal Swarnkar (A-
8): Hence, as per the averments made above in the pre paragraphs, it is established that Nandlal Swarnkar (A 5) was the part of the second module which was working for A-6 and along with A-7, A-8, A-9, A-11 and A-12 hatched criminal conspiracy with an intent to aid/assist in the management of PLFI and to assist A-6, the self-styled Chief of PLFI They were involved directly/indirectly for channelizing the collected funds from illegitimate sources knowing the fact that such funds are likely to be used by the terrorist gang for committing a terrorist act or otherwise, voluntarily assisted in concealing or disposing of or making away with amount collected through extortion/Levy 29 2025:JHHC:12153-DB by A-6 & through the operatives of PLFI A-8, with the association of A-7, A-9, A-11 and A-12 knowingly held the amount which was derived or obtained by Dinesh Gope and the operatives of PLFI from the commission of terrorist act (levy/extortion) or acquired through the terrorist fund. A-8 fraudulently or dishonestly posed himself as an officer of the PMO and personated by showing fake identity/visiting card and cheated and further received extorted amount in the name of alleged surrender of Dinesh Gope (A-6). For this purpose, A-8 arranged meeting with political leaders and facilitated other co accused in execution of criminal conspiracy and thereby accused Nandlal Swarnkar (A-8) committed offences under sections 120 B, 414, 419 and 471 of IPC section 21 of UA(P) act 1967.
52. The specific role of the present appellant has been mentioned in para 17.18 of the chargesheet wherein it is alleged that present appellant A-8 was involved in receiving the funds, collected through extortion of Levy by Dinesh Gope (A-6), who is a terrorist and Self- styled Chief of PLFI(People's Liberation Front of India) as per the plan of PLFI and on the behest of PLFI Self-styled Chief Dinesh Gope (A-6) and Samant Kumar (A7).
53. It has come on record that present appellant with the association of A-7, A9, A 11 and A-12 knowingly belt the amount which was derived or obtained by the operatives of PLFI and Dinesh Gope from commission of terrorist act levy/extortion or acquired through the terrorist fund and further channelized the extorted money through legitimate means and arranged/attended meeting for criminal conspiracy.
30
2025:JHHC:12153-DB
54. Further, it has surfaced during investigation by NIA that the present appellant, fraudulently and dishonestly posed himself as an officer and impersonated before the associates of the accused Dinesh Gope by showing fake identity/visiting card and had realized a hefty amount in the name of alleged surrender of Dinesh Gope.
55. Thus, it appears from the aforesaid paragraphs that present appellant Nandlal Swarnkar (A 8) was the part of the second module which was working for A-6 and along with A-7, A-8, A-9, A-11 and A- 12 hatched criminal conspiracy with an intent to aid/assist in the management of PLFI and to assist A-6, the self-styled Chief of PLFI. They were involved directly/indirectly for channelizing the collected funds from illegitimate sources knowing the fact that such funds are likely to be used by the terrorist gang for committing a terrorist act.
56. Thus, from aforementioned paragraphs of charge-sheet prima- facie it appears that the present appellant was well acquainted with the facts that Dinesh Gope (A-6) is a terrorist and chief of PLFI and collects levy through extortion. Thus, it appears that the present appellant on the directions of Dinesh Gope (A 6) and with the association of Sumant Kumar (A-7) was deeply involved in the larger conspiracy and was channelizing the extorted amount as per the plan of PLFI a proscribed terrorist organization.
57. Thus, prima-facie appears from the content of the 1st supplementary charge-sheet that there is prosecutable evidence against the appellant which is supported by documentary as well as 31 2025:JHHC:12153-DB oral evidence of the witnesses of chargesheet. Issue of parity
58. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant has taken the ground of parity and submits that the other co-accused person, namely, Jitendra Kumar has been directed to be released on bail by co-ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 08.05.2023 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.514 of 2020.
59. The learned counsel for the appellant has further taken the reference of the order dated 03.10.2023 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 201 of 2020 by which accused persons namely Binod Kumar, Chandra Shekhar Kumar, Nand Kishore Mahto, Mohan Kumar has been granted bail.
60. The another co-accused namely Navin Bhai Jayanti Bhai Patel has also been enlarged on bail by the Hon'ble Apex Court Vide order dated 03.02.2025 passed in SLP(Crl.) 16179 of 2025, as such it is fit case wherein bail may be granted to the present appellant by allowing the present appeal.
61. In the backdrop of aforesaid contention, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that since the other co-accused persons have already been granted bail, therefore the present appellant may be enlarged on bail.
62. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent NIA has submitted that the case of the instant appellant is on different footing in comparison to the other accused persons who have already been 32 2025:JHHC:12153-DB granted bail. It is further submitted that co-ordinate Bench of this Court had denied the privilege of bail to another-co-accused namely Fuleshwar Gope in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 767 of 2022 and the said order has been affirmed vide order dated 03.02.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).7703/2024 by which prayer for bail of the said co-accused has been rejected.
63. In the backdrop of the aforesaid contention, this Court is now proceeding to examine the issue of parity. The law is well settled that the principle of parity is to be applied if the case of the fact is exactly to be similar then only the principle of parity in the matter of passing order but if there is difference in between the facts, then the principle of parity is not to be applied.
64. It is further settled connotation of law that Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality of circumstances before granting bail and by only simple saying that another accused has been granted bail is not sufficient to determine whether a case for the grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established. Reference in this regard may be taken from the judgment as rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana, (2021) 6 SCC 230, wherein, it has been held as under:
"25. We are constrained to observe that the orders passed by the High Court granting bail fail to pass muster under the law. They are oblivious to, and innocent of, the nature and gravity of the alleged offences and to the severity of the punishment in 33 2025:JHHC:12153-DB the event of conviction. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 :] , this Court has held that while applying the principle of parity, the High Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality of circumstances before granting bail. This Court observed : (SCC p. 515, para 17) "17. Coming to the case at hand, it is found that when a stand was taken that the second respondent was a history-sheeter, it was imperative on the part of the High Court to scrutinise every aspect and not capriciously record that the second respondent is entitled to be admitted to bail on the ground of parity. It can be stated with absolute certitude that it was not a case of parity and, therefore, the impugned order [Mitthan Yadav v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 16031] clearly exposes the non- application of mind. That apart, as a matter of fact it has been brought on record that the second respondent has been charge-sheeted in respect of number of other heinous offences. The High Court has failed to take note of the same. Therefore, the order has to pave the path of extinction, for its approval by this Court would tantamount to travesty of justice, and accordingly we set it aside.
26. Another aspect of the case which needs emphasis is the manner in which the High Court has applied the principle of parity. By its two orders both dated 21-12-2020 [Pravinbhai Hirabhai Koli v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2986] , [Khetabhai Parbatbhai Makwana v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2988] , the High Court granted bail to Pravin Koli (A-10) and Kheta Parbat Koli (A-15). Parity was sought with Sidhdhrajsinh Bhagubha Vaghela (A-13) to whom bail was granted on 22-10-2020 [Siddhrajsinh Bhagubha Vaghela v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2985] on the ground (as the High Court recorded) that he was "assigned similar role of armed with stick (sic)". Again, bail was granted to Vanraj Koli (A-16) on the ground that he was armed with a wooden stick and on the ground that Pravin (A-10), Kheta (A-15) and Sidhdhrajsinh (A-13) who were armed with sticks had been granted bail. The High Court has evidently misunderstood the central aspect of what is meant by parity. Parity while granting bail must focus upon the role of the accused. Merely observing that another accused who was granted bail was armed with a similar weapon is not sufficient to determine whether a case for the grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established. In deciding the aspect of parity, the role attached to the accused, their position in relation to the incident and to the victims is of utmost importance. The High Court has proceeded on the basis of parity on a simplistic assessment as noted above, which again cannot pass muster under the law."
65. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Tarun Kumar Versus Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, reported in (2023) 34 2025:JHHC:12153-DB SCC OnLine SC 1486 has observed that parity is not the law and while applying the principle of parity, the Court is required to focus upon the role attached to the accused whose application is under consideration.
66. In the light of aforesaid settled position of law this Court has gone through the order by which bail has been granted to the co- accused by the co-ordinate bench and has examined the allegations of the co-accused against whom parity has been claimed.
67. Against the co-accused namely Jitendra Kumar the major charge, which has been levelled against him, is that of being involved in a larger conspiracy along with several other co-accused persons in channelizing the extorted money of Dinesh Gope (A-6) into the account of Hira Devi @ Anita Devi (A-14) and other persons.
68. Further, the allegation against the other accused persons namely Binod Kumar(A-1), Chandra Shekhar Kumar, Nand Kishore Mahto Rajesh Kumar @ Mohan Kumar that they are of being involved in criminal conspiracy with the other accused persons more particularly PLFI supremo - Dinesh Gope into channelizing the extorted money into legitimate means. What would further be apparent is that the appellants were acting as conduits in channelizing such ill-gotten money.
69. So far as co-accused Navinbhai Jayantibhai Patel is concerned, the first supplementary charge sheet was submitted against him and he was arrayed as an accused no. 12 by the NIA. In the said charge-sheet it has been alleged that the said co-accused Navinbhai Jayantibhai 35 2025:JHHC:12153-DB Patel was part of 2nd module for channelizing the illegitimate money into legitimate means and was working for Dinesh Gope (i.e. main accused no. 6) despite knowing the fact, the said fund are proceeds of levy collected from Contractors, businessmen etc. and were being used for procurement of explosives, arms and ammunitions and for committing disruptive activities.
70. It has come in investigation against the present appellant that in addition to allegation of channelizing the extorted money into legitimate means, cash amounting to Rs. 4,28,400/- (rupees four lakhs twenty- eight thousand four hundred only) were Seized vide Search cum on Seizure memo in the intervening night of 21.05.2019 from the house of the present appellant Nandlal Swarnkar which is located at Flat No.106, 1st Floor, Northend Tower, Khasara No.289, 60 Feet Road, Chhatarpur, New Delhi.
71. Further it has come in the investigation that the present appellant fraudulently or dishonestly posed himself as an officer of the PMO and personated by showing fake identity/visiting card and further received extorted amount in the name of alleged surrender of Dinesh Gope (A-6).
72. It is evident from the aforesaid discussed factual aspect that prima facie the culpability of the present appellant in alleged commission of crime is greater in comparison to the other co-accused persons who have been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench.
73. Further, this Court has also gone through the order dated 36 2025:JHHC:12153-DB 21.03.2024 passed in in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 767 of 2022 by which the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had denied the privilege of bail to another-co-accused, namely, Fuleshwar Gope.
74. It needs to refer herein that against the order dated 21.03.2024 an appeal being Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).7703/2024 had been preferred before the Hon'ble Apex Court but vide order dated 03.02.2025 the said appeal has been rejected. For ready reference, relevant part of the said order is being quoted as under:
"3. Since the date of issuance of notice in the present petition, we notice that trial has substantially progressed and is almost nearing completion.
4.Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that today co-accused (Accused No.12) stands granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court.
5.In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case relating to the petitioner, we are not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
6. The present Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed."
75. Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid order that the Hon'ble Apex Court while taking in to consideration the progress of trial which is almost nearing completion has dismissed the prayer for bail of the co-accused Fulshear Gope.
76. Further, the case of the one of the co-accused persons whose instance has also been taken on behalf of the appellant, i.e., in the case of Jitendra Kumar, appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) 514 of 2020 has been declared to be approver. The said approver has given the true disclosure about the conduct of all the accomplishment including the present appellant.
77. Further, it needs to refer herein that the learned counsel for the NIA has submitted at Bar that trial of the case is at its fag end and 37 2025:JHHC:12153-DB prosecution witnesses have already been closed herein and statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has already been recorded and now the case is at the stage of defence.
78. Further the learned counsel for the respondent had drawn attention of this court to the conduct of the defence and submitted that the defence is not producing their witnesses not only for one date, rather, for last six dates, no defence witnesses have come, therefore, the appellant cannot be allowed to take the ground of pending trial for his release, once they are avoiding to produce their defence witnesses.
79. Thus, from the aforesaid factual aspect it is evident that trial in the instant case on verge of completion and delay is caused on the side of defence, therefore taking in to consideration the culpability of the present appellant in compare to other co-accused as discussed above in the preceding paragraph and further taking in to consideration the view expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the order dated 03.02.2025 which has been refereed hereinabove is of view that on the ground of parity also the present appellant is not eligible for privilege of the bail.
80. So far as the argument regarding reliance having been placed upon the judgment of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (Supra) is concerned, this Court is of the view that in the facts and circumstances the aforesaid judgment will not be applicable herein since in the said case altogether 276 charge-sheeted witnesses 38 2025:JHHC:12153-DB were to be examined and on the pin-pointed question by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the investigating agency has submitted that there is no question of reducing the number of charge-sheeted witnesses and in view thereof and considering the period of custody, i.e., more than 5 and half years and also taking into consideration the spirit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India the Hon'ble Apex Court has not interfered in the order by which the bail was granted to respondent- accused.
81. While, the fact of the instant case is that there is very grave nature of allegation against the present appellant and further, in the instant case trial is on verge of conclusion, thus ratio of the judgment of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (Supra), in the present facts and circumstances of the case will not be applicable herein.
82. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (supra) while taking in to consideration the ratio of judgment of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (Supra), 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 39 2025:JHHC:12153-DB 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."
83. Thus, this Court, merely on the basis of the custody by taking the ground of violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the same since has already been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gurwinder Singh (Supra) even after taking into consideration the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.A. Najeeb (Supra), therefore, is of the view that the parameter which statutorily has been provided under Section 43D(5) is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of consideration of bail, if the allegation as per the material collected in course of investigation is found to be prima-facie untrue then only prayer for bail, can be considered. While, if the allegation has been found to be prima-facie true, the privilege of bail cannot be granted.
84. This Court, on the basis of the facts and coming to the settled position of law as referred hereinabove and the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (supra) and Gurwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another (supra), is of the view that it cannot be said that the allegation levelled against the appellant is prima facie untrue.
85. In view of the foregoing discussions, we find no illegality in the impugned order dated 29.01.2020 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1006 of 2019 by the Judicial Commissioner-cum- Special Judge, NIA, at Ranchi in connection with Special (NIA) Case No.02 of 2018 (R.C. No.02/2018/NIA/DLI), arising out of Bero P.S. 40 2025:JHHC:12153-DB Case No.67 of 2016, as such, we are of the view that the instant appeal lacks merit, hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed.
86. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, also stands dismissed.
87. We make it clear that the prima facie findings recorded in this judgment are only for considering the prayer for bail of the appellant. The reasons are confined to the prayer for bail of the appellant. The same will have no bearing on the trial of the case of the appellant and co-accused.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) I Agree (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Rohit/-A.F.R. 41