Jharkhand High Court
Prafulla Malakar @ Prafulla Kumar ... vs The Union Of India on 16 September, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 430 of 2025
Prafulla Malakar @ Prafulla Kumar Malakar ... Appellant
Versus
The Union of India, through National Investigation Agency
... Respondent
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA For the Appellant : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate For the NIA : Mr. A.K. Das, Spl.P.P.(NIA)
---
09/16.09.2025 I.A. No. 7498 of 2025 Heard Mr. Manoj Tandon, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.K. Das, the learned Spl.P.P. (NIA).
2. This application has been preferred by the appellant for grant of bail to him during the pendency of this appeal.
3. The appellant has been convicted for the offences under sections 121A, 414/120-B of the IPC, section 25(1AA)/35, 26(2) of the Arms Act, section 10(b)(II), 13, 17, 18 and 20 of the UA(P) Act and section 17 of the CLA Act and the maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant is RI for 15 years along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under section 25(1AA)/35 of the Arms Act.
4. It has been alleged that an information was received by the informant on 29.08.2012 that some top leaders of the terrorist organization CPI Maoist are arriving to purchase weapons. Based on such information, a station diary entry was made and thereafter a raiding team was constituted. It has been alleged that when the raiding team had reached Silodar village, one person who was carrying a large back pack started to flee away towards the forest but he was surrounded and apprehended. The apprehended person has disclosed his name as Prafulla Malakar (appellant) and during inquiry, he had disclosed that he used to supply arms and ammunitions to the terrorist organization. In presence of seizure list witnesses, one M16 rifle COLT AR.15, property of the US Government, M-16-A/CAL 5.56 MM, 1780944 written on the body loaded with 14 cartridges of 5.56 bore in Magazine, one bullet proof jacket, one Micromax mobile with SIMs were recovered. It has further been alleged that the appellant had confessed and had stated that as per their planning Anil Kumar Yadav who is the Zonal Commander of the terrorist organization, Arms Supply Unit, is arriving with cash to take delivery of the said arms and ammunitions. Based on the confessional statement of the appellant, the police had ambushed the forest area and subsequently, one Anil Kumar Yadav was apprehended and from his possession an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- in cash was recovered apart from some arms and ammunitions.
5. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Chauparan PS Case No. 187/2012 was instituted. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and Anil Kumar Yadav under section 386/ 387/121/121A/414/120-B of the IPC, section 25(1-b)a/26/ 35 of the Arms Act, section 17 of the CLA Act and section 10/ 13 of the UA(P) Act. In compliance to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Order No. F. No.11011/55/2012-IS.IV dated 07.12.2012 the NIA had taken over the investigation and re-registered the case being RC 08/2012/NIA/DLI dated 17.12.2012. The NIA had thereafter submitted charge-sheet against the present appellant, Anil Kumar Yadav and Mantu Sharma under section 386, 387, 121, 121A, 414, 120-B of the IPC, section 25(1-b)a/26/35 of the Arms Act, section 10/13/17/18/20 of the UA(P) Act and section 17 of the CLA Act and further investigation was kept pending.
6. It has been submitted by Mr. Manoj Tandon, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the appellant has completed a total period of about four years seven months in custody out of a maximum sentence of 15 years RI imposed upon him under section 25(1AA) of the Arms Act. It has been submitted that the recovery which has been shown from the possession of the appellant is falsified by the fact that the appellant was illegally detained for a period of four days prior to his official arrest and in fact, the appellant has been planted with the arms and ammunitions for which the case was registered. The -2- learned counsel submits that though the NIA had examined 86 witnesses in support of its case but there are vital contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses and it has not been ascertained that it was the present appellant from whose possession US made arms and other incriminating articles were recovered. The learned counsel in such circumstances has prayed that the appellant be granted bail during the pendency of this appeal.
7. Mr. A.K. Das, the learned Spl.P.P.(NIA) has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant and has submitted that the appellant has not even completed half of the sentence imposed upon him. It has further been submitted that the appellant has failed to bring on record any evidence either oral or documentary to substantiate his assertion that he was illegally detained for a period of four days prior to his arrest. Mr. Das has submitted that the mobile which was recovered from the possession of the appellant was kept under surveillance and while referring to the evidence of PW-25 it has been submitted that 13 interceptions were recorded which indicate that the appellant was in constant touch with the top rung of the terrorist organization including the co-convict Anil Kumar Yadav who happen to be the Zonal Commander of the organization. Mr. Das has also submitted that the appellant has got several criminal antecedents. It has further been submitted that in course of investigation it had come to light that the M16 rifle which was recovered from the possession of the appellant was property of the Government of the United States of America and it was manufactured some time in the year 1969-70 and it was most probably used in the Vietnam war which went missing and subsequently resurfaced from the possession of the appellant.
8. The evidence of the witnesses as well as the other documents supplementing such evidence indicates that M16 rifle COLT AR.15 which was the property of the US Government was indeed recovered from the possession of the appellant apart from certain other incriminating materials including a bullet proof jacket. It also appears -3- from the evidence of PW-25 and the other documentary evidence that there was frequent dialogue between the appellant and the other members of the terrorist organization which has come to light on account of the surveillance made on the mobile of the appellant and the interception of the various calls. However, at the same time, we cannot be oblivious to the fact that the appellant had remained in custody during the trial from 29.08.2012 to 06.04.2015 and from 20.09.2023 till date which indicate that the appellant has completed almost four years and seven months in custody out of a maximum sentence of 15 years RI which was imposed upon him for the conviction under section 25(1AA) of the Arms Act.
9. On consideration of the entire aspects of the case as well as the period of custody undergone by the appellant, we are inclined to admit the appellant on bail. Accordingly, during the pendency of this appeal, the appellant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner- XVI-cum- Special Judge (JH00-497) NIA, Ranchi in Special (NIA) Case No. 01 of 2012 (RC 08 of 2012/NIA/DLI), subject to the condition that both the bailors should be the close relatives of the appellant.
10. I.A. stands disposed of.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.) 16.09.2025 S.B. -4-