Ajay Turi vs Union Of India Through National ... on 13 October, 2025

[Cites 62, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Ajay Turi vs Union Of India Through National ... on 13 October, 2025

1. The instant appeal preferred under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is directed against the order dated 13.06.2025 passed in Misc. Cr. Application No.705 of 2025 by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail in connection with Special (NIA) No.01/2021 arising out of Balumath P.S. Case no.234 of 2020 re-registered as RC Case No.01/2021/NIA/RNC by NIA under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 504, 506, 307, 427, 435, 386, 387, 120B, 121A and 216 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 25(1)(b), 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act, Sections 3 & 4 of the Explosive 1 2025:JHHC:31597-DB Substance Act, Section 17 of CLA Act, 1908 and Sections 10, 13, 16(1)(b), 20 and 23 of UA(P) Act, has been rejected. Facts

2. The brief facts of the case, as per the prosecution version, which required to be enumerated read hereunder as:-

The prosecution case is based on the information received by Balumath Police Station that at about 19 hours on 18.12.2020, some unknown persons were burning vehicles by firing indiscriminately near check post no.1 at Tetariakhand Colliery. The assailants fired on the police party that had rushed to the spot. The assailants had burnt four trucks, one motorcycle and injured four civilians. The remnants of the burnt vehicles, fragments of a cane bomb with wire, a white colour empty gallon of approx. 02 liters, spent cartridges and three hand written pamphlets containing threats to the transporters and coal companies, involved in the mining area signed by one Pradip Ganjhu were found from the spot. Upon further inquiry it was revealed that gangster Sujit Sinha and Aman Sao had conspired with accused Pradeep Ganjhu and his associates namely Santosh Ganjhu, Bihari Ganjhu, Sakendra Ganjhu, Pramod Ganjhu and others for extortion and disruption of Government works.

Accordingly, Balumath PS Case No.234/2020 dated 19.12.2020 was registered u/s 147, 148, 149, 353, 504, 506, 2 2025:JHHC:31597-DB 307, 427, 435, 386, 387 and 120B of IPC section 27 of Arms Act and Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act, against Sujit Sinha, Pradeep Ganjhu, Aman Sahu, Sakendra Ganjhu, Bihari Ganjhu, Pramod Ganjhu, Santosh Ganjhu and some other unknown accused persons.

3. The ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) Government of India in view of the gravity of the offence and its cross border and international ramification issued orders in exercise of the powers vested under Section 6(5) read with section 8 of the NIA Act 2008, directed the NIA to take up the investigation of the aforesaid case.

4. On the direction of the Ministry of Home Affairs, NIA re-registered Case No. 01/2021/NIA-RNC dated 04.03.2021 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 504, 506, 307, 427, 435, 386, 387, 120B, 121A and 216 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 25(1)(b), 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act, Section 3 & 4 of the Explosive Substance Act, Section 17 of CLA Act, 1908 and Section 10, 13, 16(1)(b), 20 and 23 of UA(P) Act.

5. From record it appears that the appellant has been taken into custody on 08.02.2021, as such, prayer for bail was made before the Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI- cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi but the same has been rejected vide order dated 13.06.2025 passed in Misc. Cr. Application No.705 of 2025 against which the present appeal has been filed.

2025:JHHC:31597-DB Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant

6. The learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned order, by which the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected, on the following grounds:

(i) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that appellant is innocent and he has committed no offence as alleged against him.

(ii) Learned counsel has further submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case and he is not named in the FIR.

(iii) The further ground has been taken that the police or the NIA has not taken any step for TIP of the appellant to establish his identity. He has been made accused in this case only on the basis of suspicion.

(iv) He has further submitted that charge has already been framed against the accused and others and trial has commenced and now there is no chance of absconding or tempering with the evidence.

(v) He has further submitted that similarly situated co-

accused persons namely Zahiruddin, Wasim, Jasim, Santosh Kumar, Pritam Kumar @ Chiku Yadav and others have been granted bail by the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi.

(vi) Learned counsel has further submitted that the appellant had earlier filed Criminal Appeal (D.B.) Nos. 4

2025:JHHC:31597-DB 609 of 2023 and 1462 of 2024 before the Hon'ble High Court which were dismissed as withdrawn.

(vii) He has further submitted that the appellant is a poor farmer and sole bread earner of his family and he is ready to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by this court if he is granted bail.

(viii) Learned counsel has further submitted that no offence under section 147, 148, 149, 353, 504, 506, 307, 427, 435, 386, 387 of IPC, section 25(1)(b), 26, 27 and 35 of Arms Act, section 3 & 4 of the Explosive Substance Act, section 17 CLA Act and section 10, 13, 16(1)(b), 20 and 23 of UA(P) Act are made out against the appellant. Therefore, he may be given privilege of bail.

(ix) It has been submitted that from perusal of charge-

sheet, it would be evident that save and except the confessional statement of co-accused persons nothing has come so as to connect the complicity of the appellant in the alleged commission of crime or even involvement in conspiracy said to attract the offence under the Schedule offences.

(x) Ground has been taken about the period of custody, as also there is no likelihood of trial to be concluded at an early date and hence by taking into consideration the said fact, submission has been made that the impugned order may be interfered with. To buttress this limb of argument the learned counsel for the 5 2025:JHHC:31597-DB appellant put his reliance upon the judgment as rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A Nazeeb [(2021) 3 SCC 713].

7. The learned counsel for the appellant based upon the aforesaid grounds has submitted that the learned court has not taken the note of the aforesaid facts, therefore, the present appeal is fit to be allowed.

Argument of the learned counsel for the opposite party

8. While on the other hand, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the National Investigating Agency (NIA) has defended the impugned order by taking following grounds:

(i) Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that it is incorrect on the part of the appellant to take the ground that there is no evidence against him, rather, ample materials have come against the appellant of having in collaboration with the members of terrorist gang, as would appear from the various paragraphs of the supplementary chargesheet.

(ii) There is specific attributability against the appellant, as would be evident from various paragraphs of the Supplementary charge-sheet i.e., paragraph nos. 17.3, 17.6, 17.7, 17.14, 17.15, 17.22, 17.29 and 17.33.

(iii) The learned counsel further submitted that the question which has been raised regarding the 6 2025:JHHC:31597-DB applicability of the principle as laid down under Article 21 of the Constitution will not be applicable herein.

(iv) The judgment upon which reliance has been placed on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant, i.e., on Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case since the 22 witnesses out of the 228 witnesses have already been examined and the offence as alleged against the present appellant is very grave in nature in compare to the respondent of the said case.

(v) It has been contended that in the case of "National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali" (2019) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that bail proceedings under the Special enactment are distinct and the Courts are duty bound to refused bail where the suspect is prima facie believed to be guilty.

(vi) It has further been submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in "Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [(2024) SCC OnLine SC 109] has held that "for the offences under UA(P) Act, bail will be an exception and jail will be the rule".

(vii) He has further submitted that the evidence collected against the appellant during the course of investigation was pointed out before the learned court below and the learned trial court while rejecting the prayer for bail, 7 2025:JHHC:31597-DB has not committed any error. The evidence pointed out by the NIA before the learned trial court for showing complicity of the appellant are mentioned below:-

 Sl.        Evidence                     What it will prove
 No.

  1    Statement of witness Statement of witness Laso Yadav

PW-15 Laso Yadav recorded u/s 161 and 164 of Cr recorded u/s 161 P.C. will prove that accused and 164 of Cr P.C. Shahrukh Ansari alongwith accused Pradeep Ganjhu and other gang member were present at village Pindarkom near to Tetariakhand colliery on 17.2.2020 and on the day of attack i.e. 18.12.2020 they were planning for terrorist attack 2 Statements of Statement of witness Ganga witness PW-16 Yadav recorded u/s 161 and 164 Ganga Yadav of Cr P.C will prove that accused recorded u/s 161 Shahrukh Ansari alongwith and 164 of Cr P.C. accused Pradeep Ganjhu and other gang member were present at village Pindarkom near to Tetariakhand colliery on 18.12.2020 they were planning for terrorist attack.

3 Statements of PW- Statement of witness Sampatti 17 Sampatti Yadav Yadav recorded u/s 161 and 164 recorded u/s 161 of Cr P.C will prove that accused and 164 of Cr P.C Shahrukh Ansari alongwith accused Pradeep Ganjhu and other gang member was present at village Pindarcom near to Tetariakhand colliery on 18.12.2020 they were planning for terrorist attack.

2025:JHHC:31597-DB 4 Disclosure and It will corroborate the pointing out by A-22 involvement of accused Ajay Turi Ajay Turi before NIA A-22 in Tetariakhand colliery in presence of incident.

independent witness D-195 to D-196 5 Confessional It will corroborate the statement of involvement of Ajay Turi A-22 in Pradeep Ganjhu, Tetariakhand colliery incident.

    Babulal Turi Aman
    Sahu       and     other
    accused            before
    Balumath                and
    Latehar police. D-
    17, D-18, D-19 and
    D-15.

6   Disclosure              and It     will       corroborate     the
    pointing                out involvement of Ajay Turi A-22 in
    statements               of Tetariakhand colliery incident.
    accused          Pradeep
    Ganjhu Babulal Turi
    Aman       Sahu         and
    other before NIA in
    presence                 of
    independent
    witnesses D-57, D-
    58, D-59, D-60, D-
    61,     D-62,      D-63,
    D123, D- 124

7   The                photo During the proceeding witness
    identification                identified accused Ajay Turi A-22
    proceeding               by being part of the terrorist gang

protected witness D involved in the terrorist attack at and protected Tetariakhand colliery on witness E (D-253 18.12.2020.

and D-254) 8 The recovery of SFSL report will prove that blasted cane bomb material exhibits recovered from 9 2025:JHHC:31597-DB 07 nos of empty scene of crime used of his cartridges, empty involvement in the incident at plastic container Tetariakhand colliery.

            and         handwritten
            pamphlets         seized
            from the scene of
            crime D-165

9 The case record of It will prove the arrest of accused P.S. Barkagaon case Ajay Turi being associated with no 44/2021 dated Aman Sahu gang in the 09.02.2021 D-262 Barkagaon case. It will also prove his association with other gang members.

09. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the respondent-NIA based upon the aforesaid ground has submitted that since the nature of allegation leveled against the appellant is very grave and bail of identically placed accused persons have already been rejected, therefore, the present appeal is also fit to be dismissed.

Analysis

10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record and the finding recorded by learned trial Court as recorded in the impugned order as also contents of counter affidavit wherein copy of the supplementary charge-sheet has also been appended.

11. It would be evident from the prosecution version that on 18.12.2020 a case being Balumath P.S. Case No. 234/2020 was instituted on information received at the 10 2025:JHHC:31597-DB Balumath Police Station against the unknown persons leveling therein the charge of burning vehicles and firing indiscriminately near Check Post No.1 near Tetariakhand Colliery. The miscreants fired on the police party that had rushed to the spot. Accused persons had burnt four trucks one motorcycle and also injured 04 civilians. From the place of occurrence, remnants of the burnt vehicles, fragments of a cane bomb with wire, a white colour empty gallon of approx. 02 liters, spent cartridges and three hand written pamphlets containing threats to the transporters and coal companies, involved in the mining area signed by one Pradip Ganjhu were found from the spot. The Police, on enquiry found that Sujit Sinha and Aman Sahu @Aman Sao had conspired with accused Pradeep Ganjhu and his associates namely Santosh Ganjhu, Bihari Ganjhu, Sakendra Ganjhu, Pramod Ganjhu and others to collect extortion from CCL transporters, contractors, DO holders and disruption of legitimate works.

12. Based on the aforesaid allegation, Balumath P.S. case no 234/2020 dated 19.12.2020 was instituted for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 504, 506, 307, 427, 435, 386, 387 and 120B of IPC section 27 of Arms Act, Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act, against accused persons.

13. The Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, in exercise of power conferred under Section 6(5) read with 11 2025:JHHC:31597-DB section 8 of the NIA Act 2008, directed the NIA to take up the investigation of the Balumath P.S. case no 234/2020 dated 19.12.2020 which was re-registered as case No.01/2021/NIA-RNC. Chargesheet was consequently submitted against the appellant and other accused persons.

14. The argument which has been advanced on behalf of the appellant that there is no specific attributability of the appellant in commission of offence said to be committed under the Schedule offence and the appellant has been implicated in the present case only on the basis of suspicion.

15. Further submission has been made that save and except the confessional statement of co-accused persons nothing has been come so as to connect the complicity of the appellant in the alleged commission of crime or even involvement in conspiracy said to attract the offence under the Schedule offences. Ground has also been taken since there is no likelihood of trial to be concluded at an early date and hence by taking into consideration the said fact the appellant may be released on bail.

16. While on the other hand, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the National Investigating Agency (NIA) has submitted that there is specific attributability against the appellant, as would be evident from various paragraphs of the charge-sheet. Further the bail applications of the co-accused persons, have also been rejected by this Court.

2025:JHHC:31597-DB

17. This Court, before proceeding to consider the legality and propriety of the impugned order, and rival submission of learned counsel for the parties, deems it fit and proper to first refer the some settled proposition of law and the relevant provisions of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (herein referred as Act 1967) which is required to be considered herein.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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 13 2025:JHHC:31597-DB 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.

21. 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.

22. Further, it would be relevant to mention the offences punishable under Sections 13 of the 1967 Act, which read thus:

13. Punishment for unlawful activities.--(1) Whoever-- (a) takes part in or commits, or (b) 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. (2) Whoever, in any way, assists any unlawful activity of any association, declared unlawful under section 3, after the notification by which it has been so declared has become effective under subsection (3) of that section, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both.

2025:JHHC:31597-DB (3) Nothing in this section shall apply to any treaty, agreement or convention entered into between the Government of India and the Government of any other country or to any negotiations therefor carried on by any person authorised in this behalf by the Government of India.

23. Thus, it is evident that Section13 prescribes Punishment for unlawful activities. It is further evident that as per section 13 (1) Whoever 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.

24. 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. For ready reference, the Section 43-D(5) of UAP Act is being referred herein which reads as under:

"43D. Modified application of certain provisions of the Code- "(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no person accused of an offence punishable under Chapters IV and VI of this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity of being heard on the application for such release: Provided that such accused person shall not be released on bail or on his own bond if the Court, on a perusal of the case diary or the report made under section 173 of the Code is of the opinion that there are reasonable 15 2025:JHHC:31597-DB grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true."

25. The requirement as stipulated under Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act, 1967 in the matter of grant of regular bail fell for 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 16 2025:JHHC:31597-DB 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 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...."

26. It is, thus, evident from the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Investigation Agency v. 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 the purpose of satisfying itself, 17 2025:JHHC:31597-DB whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused or not.

27. 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.

28. 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, 25 and 26 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.

2025:JHHC:31597-DB

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 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.

26. Be it noted that the special provision, Section 43- D of the 1967 Act, applies right from the stage of registration of FIR for the offences under Chapters IV and VI of the 1967 Act until the conclusion of the trial thereof. To wit, soon after the arrest of the accused on the basis of the FIR registered against him, but before filing of the charge-sheet by the investigating agency; after filing of the first charge-sheet and before the filing of the supplementary or final chargesheet consequent to further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC, until framing of the charges or after framing of the charges by the Court and recording of evidence of key 19 2025:JHHC:31597-DB witnesses, etc. However, once charges are framed, it would be safe to assume that a very strong suspicion was founded upon the materials before the Court, which prompted the Court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged against the accused, to justify the framing of charge. In that situation, the accused may have to undertake an arduous task to satisfy the Court that despite the framing of charge, the materials presented along with the charge-sheet (report under Section 173 CrPC), do not make out reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against him is prima facie true. Similar opinion is required to be formed by the Court whilst considering the prayer for bail, made after filing of the first report made under Section 173 of the Code, as in the present case."

29. It is, thus, evident that the exercise to be undertaken by the court at this stage of granting bail by 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.

30. It needs to refer herein that 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) has observed that, the proviso 20 2025:JHHC:31597-DB 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.

31. 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.

32. 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. 21

2025:JHHC:31597-DB

33. 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 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).

34. 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 22 2025:JHHC:31597-DB 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 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 scrutinising 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--"

35. 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 23 2025:JHHC:31597-DB 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.

36. 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 summarised 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')?"

37. 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 by taking 24 2025:JHHC:31597-DB into consideration the material collected in course of investigation.

38. From perusal of record, it is evident that the extract of the charge-sheet dated 26.02.2022 is part of the counter affidavit as appended as Annexure-A. It appears from paragraph 17.3 that Balumath Police arrested accused Pradip Ganjhu (A-3), Babulal Turi (A-8), Ajay Turi (A-9), Santosh Kumar @ Banti Yadav (A-10), Prabhat Kumar Yadav-@ Dimple Yadav (A-11), Pritam Kumar @ Chiku (A-12) and Santosh Kumar Yadav (A-13) on 07.02.2021. During examination, Pradip Ganjhu (A-3), Babulal Turi (A-8) and Ajay Turi (A-9) revealed the name of the accused persons i.e. Sujit Sinha (A-1), Aman Sahu (A-2), Santosh Ganjhu (A-4), Bihari Ganjhu (A-5), Sakerder Ganjhu (A-6), Pramod Ganjhu (A-7), Shahrukh Ansari @Tiwari Khan (A-21), Saif Ansari @ Bablu (A-20), Ajay Turi S/o Govind Turi (A-22), Pankaj Karmali @ Khetiya (A-23), Jasim Ansari (A-14), Wasim Ansari (A-15), Majibul Ansari (A-16), Jahiruddin Ansari (A-17), etc. who were the part of criminal conspiracy, took part in carrying out firing and burning incident at Tetariyakhad Colliery and threw threatening pamphlets for terrorizing the Coal Businessmen, DO Holders, Transporters, etc. to disrupt the legitimate work, facilitated safe custody of arms and ammunition and provided harbor.

39. It has further been revealed as has been referred under paragraph 17.7 of chargesheet that accused Sujit 25 2025:JHHC:31597-DB Sinha and Aman Sahu being incarcerated in District Jail Jamshedpur and BMC Jail Ranchi respectively in association with members of banned associations had hatched a larger conspiracy to terrorize the Coal Businessmen, Transporters, DO Holders, Lifters and others to collect extortion by committing terrorist--act. In this process, in pursuance to conspiracy this terror gang consisting of Pradip Ganjhu @Prem@ Mandal (A-3), Santosh Ganjhu (A-4), Bihari Ganjhu (A-5), Sakendru Ganjhu (A-6), Pramod Ganjhu (A-7), Babulal Turi (A-8), Saif Ansari (A-20), Shahrukh Ansari (A-21), Ajay Turi (A-22) and Pankaj Karmali (A-23) carried out a terror incident at Tetriyakhand Colliery, PS-Bälurmath, District Latehar on 18.12.2020 resulting in injuries to 04 civilians, burning of-04 trucks and 01 motorcycle. The gang members had also dropped threatening pamphlets, asking the Coal Businessmen, Transporters, D.O. Holders, Lifters and others to pay the said gang extortion money or else to face dire consequences.

40. The investigation further revealed, as has been referred at paragraph 17.11, wherein it is mentioned that after the seizure of AK-47 Rifle etc. and arrest of two gang members by Balumath-Police in FIR no. 226/2020 dated 03.12.2020, Sujit Sinha (A-1) and Aman Sahu (A-2) in collaboration with Shahrukh Ansari (A-21), Pradip Ganjhu (A-3) and others planned to carry out terror incident at Tetariyakhad Colliery in which they decided to attack on 26 2025:JHHC:31597-DB Truck-owners,-DO-Holders, Transporters and lifters to spread the fear in their minds so that they could be extorted.

To execute the plan, Pradip Gánjhu (A-3), Santosh Ganjhu (A-4) Bihari Garijhu (A-5), Sakendra Ganjhu (A-6), Pramod Ganjhu (A-7), Babulal Turi (A-8) and his brother Ajay Turi (A-9) and Shahrukh Ansari (A-21) assembled at village-Dhoti in area of PS Chandwa, District Latehar, Jharkhand. Saif Ansari (A-20), Ajay Turi (A-22) and Pankaj Karmali @ Khetia (A-23) also joined them at village Dhoti from their village Bundu, PS Keredari, District Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. Here, Pradip Ganjhu (A-3), Shahrukh Ansari (A-21) and Ajay Turi (A-9) wrote threatening pamphlets.

41. It is evident from paragraph 17.14 it is evident that on 18.12.2020 at about 06:30 PM, Ajay Turi (A-22) and Pankaj Karmall (2) Khetiya (A-23) carried out recce at Tetariyakhad collicry. At about 07:00 PM, Pradip Ganjhu (A-

3), Santosh Ganjhu (A-4), Bihari Ganjhu (A5), Säkendra Ganjhu (A-6), Pramod Ganjhu (A-7), Babulal Turi (A-8), Saif Ansari(A-20), Shahrukh Ansari (A-21), Ajay-Turi (A-22) and Pankaj Karmali @ Khetia (A-23) reached Tetariyakhad colliery and carried out indiscriminate firing near Check Post No. 1 in which 04 civilians were injured. They also burnt 04 trucks & 01 motorcycle and exploded Can Bombs beneath a truck and Weigh Bridge No. 1. During this terror incident, they dropped threatening pamphlets on behalf of Pradip Ganjhu. (A-3) for collection of extortion.

2025:JHHC:31597-DB

42. It is further evident from paragraph 17.15 that after the terror incident at Tetariyakhad colliery on 18.12.2020, the said gang members including Saif Ansari (A-20), Shahrukh Ansari (A-21), Ajay Turi (A-22) returned to village Dhoti in early morning of 19.12.2020. Thereafter, except Pradip Ganjhu (A-3, Babulal Turi (A-8) and Shahrukh Ansari (A-21, all above executors of the said terror incident dispersed from village Dhoti. Saif Ansari (A-20), Ajay Turi (A-

22) and Pankaj Karmali @ Khetia (A-23) also returned to their village Bundu, PS Keredari, District Jharkhand after handing over the used firearms to accused Shahrukh Ansari (A-21) and Pradip Ganjhu (A-3).

43. It is evident from paragraph 17.22 that during examination Wasim Ansari (A-15) stated that Aman Sahu (A-

2) was using a mobile phone in Birsa Munda Central Jail, Hotwar Ranchi. On this information, Jail Superintendent, transferred him to the Special Cell of Birsa Munda Central Jail, Hotwar Ranchi. For this reason, Aman Sahu (A-2) was planning to attack Jail Superintendent, BMC, Kara, Ranchi. Aman Sahu (A-2) through Shahrukh Ansari (A-21) arranged one Carbine gun and pistol and same were kept with Jasim Ansari (A-14) and Wasim Ansari (A-15) at village Kanbhita. On the direction of Aman Sahu, Saif Ansari (A-20) received this 01 Carbine gun, 01 pistol with ammunition from Wasim Ansari (A-15) in his village Kanbhita for completing the said task along with Ajay Turi (A-22) and Pankaj Karmali (A-23). 28

2025:JHHC:31597-DB On the disclosure of Wasim Ansari (A-15), the said carbine gun, pistol and ammunition were seized by Barkagaon police from the possession of Saif Ansari (A-20) and a case no. 44/2021 dated 09.02.2021 was registered in PS-Bärkagaon, Dist Hazaribagh against accused Saif Ansari (A-20), Ajay Turi (A-22) and Pankaj Karmali (A-23).

44. It is evident from the paragraph 17.29 of the charge- sheet that the Protected Witnesses A', 'B', 'D' & 'E' were present at Tetariyakhad colliery at the time of firing by Saif Ansari (A-20), Shahrukh Ansari(A-21), Ajay Turi (A-22) and other co-accused on-18-12-2020. During Photo Identification proceedings in presence of independent witnesses, the said protected witnesses identified the photographs of Saif Ansari (A-20), Shahrukh Ansari(A-21), Ajay Turi (A-22)) alongwith Pradip Ganjhu (A-3), Santosh Ganjhu (A-4), Bihari Ganjhu (A-5) Sakendra Ganjhu (A-6), Pramod Ganjhu (A-7), Babulal Turi (A-8) and Pankaj Karmali (A-23) and stated that these persons had carried out indiscriminate firing near Check Post No.01 at Tetariyakhad colliery in which 04 civilians were injured. They burnt 04 trucks, one motorcycle and dropped threatening pamphlets in the name of Pradip Ganjhu (A-3) to collect extortion on behalf of Sujit Sinha (A-1). The protected witnesses also identified the photograph of Pradip Ganjhu (A-3) and his residence at village-Pindarkom, PS-Balumath, District- Latehar, Jharkhand.

2025:JHHC:31597-DB

45. It is evident from paragraph 17.33 that the criminal antecedents of accused Saif Ansari, (A-20), Shahrukh Ansari (A-21), and Ajay Tari (A-22) were received from the districts Hazaribagh and Ranchi respectively. The received criminal antecedents prove the. involvement of said accused persons in the criminal activities since long. They were associated with the PLFI, a banned association under the Criminal Law Amendment Act. 1908. Later, they were associated with "Sujit Sinha and Aman Sahu gang" and involved in the criminal activities of the gang. The registration of criminal case in PS Gola, District Ramgarh against accused Shahrukh Ansari (A-21), Ajay Turi (A-22) and absconding accused Pankaj Karmali (A-23) for kidnaping of one Jaleshwar Mahto with other PLFI cadres proves their affiliation with the PLFI.

46. Paragraph 17.3, 17.7, 17.11, 17.14, 17.15, 17.22, 17.29 and 17.33 are quoted hereunder as :-

"17.3 Investigation brought out that Balumath Police arrested accused Pradip Ganjhu (A-3), Babulal Turi (A-8), Ajay Turi (A-9), Santosh Kumar @ Banti Yadav (A-10), Prabhat Kumar Yadav-@ Dimple Yadav (A-11), Pritam Kumar @ Chiku (A-12) and Santosh Kumar. Yadav (A-13) on 07.02.2021. During examination, Pradip Ganjhu (A-3), Babulal Turi (A-8) and Ajay Turi (A-9) revealed the name of the accused persons i.e. Sujit Sinha (A-1), Aman Sahu (A-

2), Santosh Ganjhu (A-4), Bihari Ganjhu (A-5), Sakerder Ganjhu (A-6), Pramod Ganjhu (A-7), Shahrukh Ansari @Tiwari Khan (A-21), Saif Ansari @ Bablu (A-20), Ajay Turi S/o Govind Turi (A-22), Pankaj Karmali@ Khetiya (A-23), Jasim Ansari (A-14), Wasim Ansari (A-15), Majibul Ansari (A-16), Jahiruddin Ansari (A-17), etc. who were the part of criminal conspiracy, took part in carrying out firing and 30 2025:JHHC:31597-DB burning incident at Tetariyakhad Colliery and threw threatening pamphlets for terrorizing the Coal Businessmen, DO Holders, Transporters, etc. to disrupt the legitimate work, facilitated safe custody of arms and ammunition and provided harbor.

17.7. Investigation brought out that accused Sujit Sinha and Aman Sahu being incarcerated in District Jail Jamshedpur and BMC Jail Ranchi respectively in association with members of banned associations had hatched a larger conspiracy to terrorize the Coal Businessmen, Transporters, DO Holders, Lifters and others to collect extortion by committing terrorist--act. In this process, in pursuance to conspiracy this terror gang consisting of Pradip Ganjhu @Prem@ Mandal (A-3), Santosh Ganjhu (A-4), Bihari Ganjhu (A-5), Sakendru Ganjhu (A-6), Pramod Ganjhu (A-7), Babulal Turi (A-8), Saif Ansari (A-20), Shahrukh Ansari (A-21), Ajay Turi (A-22) and Pankaj Karmali (A-23) carried out a terror incident at Tetriyakhand Colliery, PS-Bälurmath, District Latehar on 18.12.2020 resulting in injuries to 04 civilians, burning of-04 trucks and 01 motorcycle. The gang members had also dropped threatening pamphlets, asking the Coal Businessmen, Transporters, D.O. Holders, Lifters and others to pay the said gang extortion money or else to face dire consequences. 17.11 Investigation has brought out that after the seizure of AK-47 Rifle etc. and arrest of two gang members by Balumath-Police in FIR no. 226/2020 dated 03.12.2020, Sujit Sinha (A-1) and Aman Sahu (A-2) in collaboration with Shahrukh Ansari (A-21), Pradip Ganjhu (A-3) and others planned to carry out terror incident at Tetariyakhad Colliery in which they decided to attack on Truck-owners,-DO- Holders, Transporters and lifters to spread the fear in their minds so that they could be extorted. To execute the plan, Pradip Gánjhu (A-3), Santosh Ganjhu (A-4) Bihari Garijhu (A-5), Sakendra Ganjhu (A-6), Pramod Ganjhu (A-7), Babulal Turi (A-8) and his brother Ajay Turi (A-9) and Shahrukh Ansari (A-21) assembled at village-Dhoti in area of PS Chandwa, District Latehar, Jharkhand. Saif Ansari (A-

20), Ajay Turi (A-22) and Pankaj Karmali @ Khetia (A-23) also joined them at village Dhoti from their village Bundu, PS Keredari, District Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. Here, Pradip 31 2025:JHHC:31597-DB Ganjhu (A-3), Shahrukh Ansari (A-21) and Ajay Turi (A-9) wrote threatening pamphlets.

17.14 Investigation brought out that on 18.12.2020 at about 06:30 PM, Ajay Turi (A-22) and Pankaj Karmall (2) Khetiya (A-23) carried out recce at Tetariyakhad collicry. At about 07:00 PM, Pradip Ganjhu (A-3), Santosh Ganjhu (A-

4), Bihari Ganjhu (A5), Säkendra Ganjhu (A-6), Pramod Ganjhu (A-7), Babulal Turi (A-8), Saif Ansari(A-20), Shahrukh Ansari (A-21), Ajay-Turi (A-22) and Pankaj Karmali @ Khetia (A-23) reached Tetariyakhad colliery and carried out indiscriminate firing near Check Post No. 1 in which 04 civilians were injured. They also burnt 04 trucks & 01 motorcycle and exploded Can Bombs beneath a truck and Weigh Bridge No. 1. During this terror incident, they dropped threatening pamphlets on behalf of Pradip Ganjhu. (A-3) for collection of extortion.

17.15 Investigation has brought out that after the terror incident at Tetariyakhad colliery on 18.12.2020, the said gang members including Saif Ansari (A-20), Shahrukh Ansari (A-21), Ajay Turi (A-22) returned to village Dhoti in early morning of 19.12.2020. Thereafter, except Pradip Ganjhu (A-3, Babulal Turi (A-8) and Shahrukh Ansari (A- 21, all above executors of the said terror incident dispersed from village Dhoti. Saif Ansari (A-20), Ajay Turi (A-22) and Pankaj Karmali @ Khetia (A-23) also returned to their village Bundu, PS Keredari, District Jharkhand after handing over the used firearms to accused Shahrukh Ansari (A-21) and Pradip Ganjhu (A-3).

17.22 During examination Wasim Ansari (A-15) stated that Aman Sahu (A-2) was using a mobile phone in Birsa Munda Central Jail, Hotwar Ranchi. On this information, Jail Superintendent, transferred him to the Special Cell of Birsa Munda Central Jail, Hotwar Ranchi. For this reason, Aman Sahu (A-2) was planning to attack Jail Superintendent, BMC, Kara, Ranchi. Aman Sahu (A-2) through Shahrukh Ansari (A-21) arranged one Carbine gun and pistol and same were kept with Jasim Ansari (A-14) and Wasim Ansari (A-15) at village Kanbhita. On the direction of Aman Sahu, Saif Ansari (A-20) received this 01 Carbine gun, 01 pistol with ammunition from Wasim Ansari (A-15) in his village Kanbhita for completing the said task along with Ajay Turi 32 2025:JHHC:31597-DB (A-22) and Pankaj Karmali (A-23). On the disclosure of Wasim Ansari (A-15), the said carbine gun, pistol and ammunition were seized by Barkagaon police from the possession of Saif Ansari (A-20) and a case no. 44/2021 dated 09.02.2021 was registered in PS-Bärkagaon, Dist Hazaribagh against accused Saif Ansari (A-20), Ajay Turi (A-

22) and Pankaj Karmali (A-23).

17.29 Investigation brought out that Protected Witnesses A', 'B', 'D' & 'E' were present at Tetariyakhad colliery at the time of firing by Saif Ansari (A-20), Shahrukh Ansari(A-21), Ajay Turi (A-22) and other co-accused on-18-12-2020. During Photo Identification proceedings in presence of independent witnesses, the said protected witnesses identified the photographs of Saif Ansari (A-20), Shahrukh Ansari(A-21), Ajay Turi (A-22)) alongwith Pradip Ganjhu (A-3), Santosh Ganjhu (A-4), Bihari Ganjhu (A-5) Sakendra Ganjhu (A-6), Pramod Ganjhu (A-7), Babulal Turi (A-8) and Pankaj Karmali (A-23) and stated that these persons had carried out indiscriminate firing near Check Post No.01 at Tetariyakhad colliery in which 04 civilians were injured. They burnt 04 trucks, one motorcycle and dropped threatening pamphlets in the name of Pradip Ganjhu (A-3) to collect extortion on behalf of Sujit Sinha (A-1). The protected witnesses also identified the photograph of Pradip Ganjhu (A-3) and his residence at village-Pindarkom, PS- Balumath, District-Latehar, Jharkhand. 17.33 During the, investigation, the criminal antecedents of accused Saif Ansari, (A-20), Shahrukh Ansari (A-21), and Ajay Tari (A-22) were received from the districts Hazaribagh and Ranchi respectively. The received criminal antecedents prove the. involvement of said accused persons in the criminal activities since long. They were associated with the PLFI, a banned association under the Criminal Law Amendment Act. 1908. Later, they were associated with "Sujit Sinha and Aman Sahu gang" and involved in the criminal activities of the gang. The registration of criminal case in PS Gola, District Ramgarh against accused Shahrukh Ansari (A-21), Ajay Turi (A-22) and absconding accused Pankaj Karmali (A-23) for kidnaping of one Jaleshwar Mahto with other PLFI cadres proves their affiliation with the PLFI."

2025:JHHC:31597-DB

47. It is thus evident from the imputation against the appellant, as referred in the paragraphs as quoted herein above, that it has come in the course of investigation that accused/appellant was associated with the PLFI, a banned association under the Criminal Law Amendment Act. 1908. Later, he was associated with "Sujit Sinha and Aman Sahu gang" and involved in the criminal activities of the gang. The registration of criminal case in PS Gola, District Ramgarh against accused Shahrukh Ansari (A-21), Ajay Turi (A-22) and absconding accused Pankaj Karmali (A-23) for kidnaping of one Jaleshwar Mahto with other PLFI cadres proves their affiliation with the PLFI.

48. It has further come that Aman Sahu directed them to carry out terror incidents for the purpose of extortion in the name of "Sujit Sinha and Aman Sahu gang". The investigation further revealed, that after collecting the AK 47 and other weapons, Pradip Ganjhu (A-3) with his group carried out firing in the siding of Purnadih and dropped threatening pamphlets and the group was going to carry out terrorist attack at Bukru siding, when they were intercepted by the Balumath Police. In this incident one AK-47 Rifle, other Arms and Ammunition and Rs. 107,000/- of extortion money were seized by Balumath Police and his Associates Manoj Turi and Jitender Tana Bhagat were arrested.

49. After the said incident of seizure of AK-47 Rifle etc and arrest of two Gang members by Balumath Police, Sujit 34 2025:JHHC:31597-DB Sinha (A-1) and Aman Sahu (A-2) in collaborations with Shahrukh, Pradip Ganjhu and others planned to carry out terror incident at Tetariyakhad Colliery. They were directed to attack on Truck owners, D.O., Holders, transporters and lifters to spread the fear in their minds so that they could be extorted and on the direction of Pradip Ganjhu (A-3) and Babulal Turi (A-8), Ajay Turi (A-9) wrote threatening pamphlets.

50. Later on, the accused persons planned attack at Terariakhand colliery and about 6.30 PM, and for that purpose accused Pankaj Karmali @ Khetiya and Ajay Turi carried out recce at Tetariakhad. At about 7.00 PM Pradip Ganjhu (A-3) along with other accused persons carried out indiscriminate firing, in which 04 civilians were injured. They also burned down 04 trucks, 01 motorcycle and they blasted cane bomb beneath a Weigh Bridge and beneath a truck. During the incident, they also dropped threatening pamphlets in the name of Sujit Sinha (A-1) and Pradip Gunjhu (A-3).

51. Thus, from aforesaid evidences prima-facie the involvement of the present appellant in the alleged commission of crime cannot be denied. The involvement of the appellant was direct in the alleged commission of crime which was fully substantiated by the statement of the independent protected witnesses who were the witness of the alleged crime.

2025:JHHC:31597-DB

52. The argument has emphatically been made on behalf of appellant that there is no specific attributability of the appellant in commission of offence said to be committed under the Scheduled offence and the appellant has been implicated in the present case merely on the basis of the suspicion.

53. In the aforesaid context it requires to revisit the Statutory provision especially Section 43D (5) of Act 1967, which requires consideration before looking to the legality and propriety of the order refusing to grant of regular bail.

54. Section 43D (5) 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.

55. The requirement as stipulated under Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act, 1967 in the matter of grant of regular bail that while considering the ground of delay under Section 43D(5) it is the bounden duty of the Court to apply its mind to examine the entire materials on record for the purpose of satisfying itself, whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused or not.

56. This Court is of the view by going through imputation as has found in course of investigation which same has been quoted and referred hereinabove that the complicity of the 36 2025:JHHC:31597-DB appellant in the alleged crime cannot be denied. Thus, this Court, from the aforesaid allegation cannot come to the conclusion that whatever has come in course of investigation against the appellant is said to be prima facie untrue rather this Court is of the view that the allegations are sufficient to come to the conclusion that the allegation is prima facie true.

57. Further, since the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of K.A.Najeeb (supra) so as to interfere with the impugned order, therefore, this Court deems it fit and proper to going through the judgment as referred by learned counsel for the appellant.

58. The Appellant's counsel has relied upon the case of K.A.Najeeb (supra) to back its contention that the appellant has been in jail in the instant case since 07.02.2021 which is contrary to law laid down in the aforesaid case. While this argument may appear compelling at first glance, it lacks depth and substance.

59. In K.A.Najeeb (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 order granting bail.

2025:JHHC:31597-DB

60. 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, therefore the Hon'ble Apex Court in the view of unlikelihood of completion of trial in near future not interfered in the order granting bail.

61. However, the instant case is different on fact and circumstances since the imputation which has come against the appellant as per the supplementary chargesheet is very grave and serious in nature.

62. Further, herein in the instant case, as per the submission of the learned counsel for NIA charges have been framed against the appellant/accused and presently, the prosecution has been examined 22 (Twenty-Two witnesses) out of 228 witnesses and is fully committed to a timely conclusion of the trial.

63. It has further been averred in the counter affidavit that since the appellant having criminal antecedent, therefore at this stage, if appellant/accused is allowed to be released bail, then he will get all opportunities the on to tamper with the evidence as well as influence the witnesses.

64. Further, it is settled proposition of law that the applicability of the judgment depends upon the facts and circumstances of each and every case and there cannot be 38 2025:JHHC:31597-DB any universal application of the judgment rather each judgment is to be decided on the basis of fact of each case. Reference in this regard may be taken from the judgment as rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors reported in (2014) 5 SCC 75 for ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted herein under:-

"47. It is a settled legal proposition that the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case and the case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it. "The court should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed."

65. Further, there is no quarrel about the settled position of law that Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides for protecting the fundamental right of liberty but that is to be assessed by carving out the balance in enforcing the law and order and merely because the custody is there, the availability of other cogent evidence which prima facie indicates the involvement of accused/appellant with the proscribed organization cannot be ignored.

66. 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.

67. So far, the probable delay in trial is concerned it is relevant to state that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 39 2025:JHHC:31597-DB Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) taking into 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 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."

68. Hence, applying the statutory provision as contained under Section 43-D(5) of the Act, 1967 along with its interpretation by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (Supra) and Gurwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another (supra) is of the view that the argument which has been placed that the allegation which is leveled against the appellant cannot be said to be prima facie true is having no substance.

69. Herein the issue of parity has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. This Court is conscious with the settled position of law that the issue of parity, is to 40 2025:JHHC:31597-DB be taken into consideration but the same is to be taken into consideration by applying the factual aspect along with the surrounding facts, as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486 wherein it has held as under:

"18. The submission of learned Counsel Mr. Luthra to grant bail to the appellant on the ground that the other co accused who were similarly situated as the appellant, have been granted bail, also cannot be accepted. It may be noted that parity is not the law. While applying the principle of parity, the Court is required to focus upon the role attached to the accused whose application is under consideration."

70. 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 simply saying that another accused has been granted bail is not sufficient to determine whether a case for grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod vs. 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 the event of conviction. In Neeru Yadav v.

2025:JHHC:31597-DB State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527], 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 (A16) 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 42 2025:JHHC:31597-DB 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."

71. It has been mentioned in the counter affidavit that from relevant paragraph 1ST Supplementary chargesheet it is evident that mobile phones and SIM cards of accused were recovered and seized at the time of arrest from accused persons were forwarded to CERT IN, New Delhi for forensic examination and analyzed. That, the threat and demand pamphlets of Sujeet Sinha and Aman Sahu gang issued by Pradeep Ganjhu (A-3) and recorded audio files extracted from the mobile phones showing association of Saif Ali (A-

20), Shahrukh Ansari (A-21), the appellant/accused Ajay Turi (A-22), Pradeep Ganjhu (A-3) and others with Aman Sahu (A-2) establishes the existence of the (Sujeet Sinha and Aman Sahu gang) association of the appellant/accused Ajay Turi (A-22) with the terror gang.

72. This Court, in view of the principle of parity as discussed hereinabove and taking into consideration the material available against the present appellant and also the culpability of the present appellant in alleged commission of 43 2025:JHHC:31597-DB crime is of the view that the principle of parity is not fit to be applied herein.

73. Hence, on the basis of discussion made hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the material on record prima facie indicates the complicity of the accused as a part of the conspiracy since he was knowingly facilitating the commission of terrorist act under the Sections of the UAP Act.

74. This Court taking into consideration the aforesaid facts is of the view that in the circumstances as referred hereinabove and taking into consideration the allegation leveled against the appellant the impugned order needs no interference by this Court.

75. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.

76. It is made clear that the observation made by this Court in the instant appeal is for the purpose of consideration of grant of bail of the present appellant and it will not prejudice the trial of the appellant before the learned trial court.

              I agree                       (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)


      (Arun Kumar Rai, J.)                     (Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

Dated : 13th October, 2025

Birendra/A.F.R.
Uploaded on 14.10.2025


                                       44

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court