Fuleshwar Gope vs Union Of India on 4 February, 2026

[Cites 33, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Fuleshwar Gope vs Union Of India on 4 February, 2026

1. The instant appeal preferred under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, NIA at Ranchi, in Miscellaneous Cr. Application No.1476 of 2025 [Special (NIA) Case No.02 of 2018] corresponding to R.C. No.02/2018/NIA/DLI, 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 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and Sections 13, 17 & 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been rejected. 1

2026:JHHC:2958-DB PROSECUTION CASE & FACTS

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case leading to this Criminal Appeal is that on 10.11.2016, a secret information was received by Bindeshwari Das S.I. of Bero P.S. that Dinesh Gope, Supremo of PLFI, a proscribed unlawful organization, was trying to deposit the ill-gotten funds, collected through extortion/levy for further channelizing into white money through his associates and being brought up by his associates in a Safari car bearing registration number JH01V-2898 for depositing in SBI Bero Branch.

3. Thereafter, a team was constituted under the leadership of Inspector of Police Tetru Oraon of Bero circle and thereafter, the police team including Bindeshwari Das, S.I. of Bero P.S. reached at SBI, Bero Branch and covered the inner/outer vicinity of the said Branch and surveillance on the suspects was initiated. Meanwhile, seeing the police party, three- four persons tried to escape from the SBI Branch who were apprehended by the police team. They disclosed their names as (i) Vinod Kumar (A-1),

(ii) Chandrashekhar Kumar (A-2), (iii) Nand Kishore Mahto (A-3) and (iv) Mohan Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar (A-4). It is alleged that on the personal search of apprehended persons, cash of Rs.16 lacs were recovered from Vinod Kumar (A-1), cash of Rs.38000 was recovered from Chandrashekhar Kumar (A-2) and cash of Rs.09 lacs were recovered from Nand Kishore Mahto (A-3). All currency notes (total Rs.25,38,000/-) were of Rs.1,000/- denominations. The apprehended persons did not produce any relevant document regarding recovered huge cash amount. 2

2026:JHHC:2958-DB They admitted that the recovered amount is extorted/ black money derived in the form of levy by the PLFI and they were trying to deposit the same in the account of Petrol Pump to convert the same as legal money. Thereafter, a case was registered at Bero P.S. bearing Bero P.S. Case No. 67/2016 under Sections 212, 213 & 414 read with Section 34 of the IPC, Sections 13, 17 & 40 of the UA(P) Act and Section 17 of the CLA Act against the said four apprehended accused persons.

4. Thereafter, Govt. of India, MHA (CTCR Division) vide order No. 11011/51/2017/IS-IV dated 16.01.2018 directed the National Investigation Agency, Ranchi to take over the case of Bero P.S. No.67/2018 and thereafter, the NIA re-registered case no. RC-02/2018/NIA/DLI dated 19.01.2018 and submitted 1st, 2nd & 3rd supplementary charge-sheets against 19 accused persons including the present appellant, namely, Fuleshwar Gope (A-17).

5. After obtaining the administrative approval of the competent authority the case docket and case exhibits were transferred to the NIA by the Investigating agency and accordingly investigation was taken up by the NIA.

6. During the course of further investigation it surfaced that the absconding accused Dinesh Gope (A-6), supremo of PLFI, continued to channelize levy amount into legitimate means by depositing/transferring into the bank accounts of his wives(A-13) and A-14 and associates by using several Pragya Kendra operative through various banking channels and also in the bank accounts of Companies opened in the name of his 3 2026:JHHC:2958-DB wives(A-13), A-14, Sumant Kumar (A-7) and the present appellant (Fuleshwar Gope) and accordingly, present appellant was arrested on 13.07.2020.

7. Accordingly, on 23.7.2020, 2nd supplementary charge-sheet was submitted against the other accused persons including the present appellant and he was arrayed as an Accused no.17 (A-17).

8. Consequently, the above-named appellant had preferred the regular bail application vide Misc. Cr. Application No. 566 of 2022 before the NIA Special Court, Ranchi for regular bail but the same has been rejected vide order dated 19.05.2022, against which, an appeal being Cr. Appeal (DB) No.767 of 2022 has been preferred before this Court but vide order dated 21.03.2024 the same has also been rejected.

9. The present appellant against the said order dated 21.03.2024 has preferred Special Leave Petition being SLP No. 7703 of 2024 before the Hon'ble Apex Court but vide order dated 03.02.2025 the said petition has also been dismissed.

10. Consequently, the above-named appellant had again preferred the regular bail application vide Misc. Cr. Application No. 1476 of 2025 before the NIA Special Court, Ranchi but the same has been rejected vide order dated 18.08.2025, against which, the present appeal has been filed. Submission advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the Appellant:

11. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds: -

2026:JHHC:2958-DB

(i) The appellant has falsely been implicated in the instant case without any valid evidence.

(ii) It has been contended that the appellant is a poor farmer and was working as Munshi for contractors on daily wages.

(iv) The appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 13.07.2020. He is in custody for about 5 years and 6 months. He has completed his sentence for the offence under Section 17(1)(2) of the CLA and there is no likelihood of trial to be concluded in near future.

(v) It has further been contended that no case of criminal conspiracy made out as there is no meeting of minds or intention with co- accused to commit any terrorist activities or channelizing terror fund.

(vi) It has also been contended that the prosecution has already closed its evidence after examining 125 witnesses out of 152 witnesses.

(vii) It has been submitted that the constitutional rights given under Article 21 will prevail over the statutory embargo provided under section 43(d)(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

(viii) The order passed by this Court to conclude the trial within one year has not been complied with. Now, the case is at the stage of Section 313 Cr.P.C.

(ix) The ground of parity has also been taken that fourteen accused persons have already been granted bail, who have similar set of 5 2026:JHHC:2958-DB allegations of channelizing extortion money/ill gotten money of A-6- Dinesh Gope.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant, on the aforesaid premise, has submitted that the learned court ought to have considered these aspects of the matter, while considering the prayer for regular bail, but having not been considered, therefore, the impugned orders need to be interfered with.

Submission advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for Respondent-N.I.A.

13. Per contra, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the respondent-NIA has taken the following grounds by defending the impugned order:-

(i) It has been contended that during the course of investigation, it has been surfaced that accused Dinesh Gope (A-6) has ensured that portions of the illicit funds were deposited in the accounts of M/s Shiv Shakti Samriddhi Infra Pvt. Ltd. (A-20), wherein, the Directors were Hira Devi (A-14), the first wife of accused Dinesh Gope (A-6) and Fuleshwar Gope, the present appellant (A-17).

(ii) If the entire document will be looked into where the name of the appellant has been referred as one of the Director of the said Company along with the reference of Voter Card, Aadhar Card and the detailed address of the appellant.

(iii) It has been contended that during the course of investigation by the NIA, the involvement of the present appellant emerged in the 6 2026:JHHC:2958-DB instant case and evidence against him was collected. Sufficient prosecutable evidences have been collected against him.

(iv) It has also been contended that the evidences have already been closed and trial at the stage of 313 Cr.P.C and if the present appellant is allowed to be released on bail, then he will get all opportunities to tamper with the evidence as well as influence the witnesses or he may abscond.

(v) On earlier occasion, the prayer for grant of bail of the present appellant had already been rejected by this Court, on merit, vide order dated 21.03.2024 in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 767 of 2022 and thereafter, against the said order, the appellant preferred SLP being the SLP No. 7703 of 2024 before the Hon'ble Apex Court which was dismissed vide order dated 03.02.2025. Accordingly, by referring the aforesaid fact the learned counsel for NIA has submitted that since on earlier occasion the prayer of the appellant has already been rejected after due appreciation on merit and the said order has not been interfered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, and further there is no change of circumstances in fact or law, therefore the present appeal is not required any interference by this Court.

(vi) So far, the issue of parity is concerned the co-ordinate Bench of this Court while rejecting the earlier appeal of the present appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 767 of 2022 has already considered the issue of parity and thereafter had negated the said claim of parity, therefore even in the issue of parity the instant appeal is not fit to be 7 2026:JHHC:2958-DB allowed.

(vii) It has further been contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court on 03.02.2025 while rejecting the prayer for bail of the present appellant has taken into consideration the fact that the bail has been granted to co-accused (Accused No.12) by a Coordinate Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the same day and even thereafter the prayer for bail of the present appellant has been rejected and the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically observed that "in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case relating to the petitioner, we are not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail".

(viii) Learned counsel referring the aforesaid fact has further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court has taken into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case has denied the bail and from the aforesaid finding of the Hon'ble Apex Court it is evident that the case of the present appellant is on different footing in compare to other accused persons, therefore the benefit of parity cannot be extended to the present appellant.

(ix) The applicant/accused Fuleshwar Gope (A-17), being a Director and authorized signatory of A-20 (shell company), is liable for the unlawful activities committed by the said company under the principle of vicarious liability as enshrined in Section 22C of the UA(P) Act, 1967. His position as an incorporator and operator of a front company used for terrorist financing renders him culpable for acts of criminal conspiracy, concealment of proceeds of terrorism, 8 2026:JHHC:2958-DB and participation in the unlawful objectives of PLFI.

14. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the respondent-NIA, based upon the aforesaid grounds has submitted that no fresh ground, on facts as well as on law except the period of custody, has been agitated herein by renewing the prayer for grant of bail, hence, the instant appeal is also fit to be dismissed.

Analysis

15. 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 and material available on record.

16. This Court, before proceeding to examine the prayer for bail of the appellant, deems it fit and proper that the requirement as stipulated under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 is required to be considered herein. Section 43(d)(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.

17. 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 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 9 2026:JHHC:2958-DB materials/evidence collected 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 commission of the stated offence.

18. 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.

19. 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 while considering the ground of bail 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.

20. Before appreciating the contention of the learned counsel for the parties, it would be apt to refer herein that earlier the prayer for bail was made before the learned trial court by preferring Misc. Cr. Application No. 566 of 2022 before the NIA Special Court, Ranchi but the same has been rejected vide order dated 19.05.2022, against which, appeal was preferred before Division Bench of this Court being Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 767 of 2022 which has also been dismissed, vide order dated 21.03.2024. 10

2026:JHHC:2958-DB

21. Thereafter, the appellant preferred Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court being SLP No. 7703 of 2024 but vide order dated 03.02.2025, the said petition has also been dismissed.

22. Thereafter, the present appellant again preferred Misc. Cr. Application for bail before the Special Court being Misc. Cr. Application No. 1476 of 2025 which has been dismissed vide order dated 18.08.2025, against which, the present appeal has been preferred.

23. Thus, from the aforesaid, it is evident that earlier this Court has already rejected the prayer for bail of the present appellant, vide order dated 21.03.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 767 of 2022 on merit by taking into consideration the evidence available on record as well as the settled proposition of law. For ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the said order are being referred as under:

"41. The 2nd supplementary charge-sheet dated 23.07.2020 has been appended as Annexure to the main petition and it is evident from the 2nd supplementary charge-sheet that the appellant has been charge-sheeted accused (A-17) of the instant case.

42. It is evident from the perusal of charge-sheet that NIA in his investigation found that the present petitioner (A-17) 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 of M/s Shiv Shaktisamridhhi Infra Pvt Ltd (A-20) which is mentioned in various paragraphs of the 2nd supplementary charge- sheet. For ready reference the aforesaid paragraphs are being quoted herein under: -

"16.4 It is pertinent to mention that the cadres/members/operatives of proscribed organization, PLFI, declared unlawful association by the Jharkhand state, are acquiring huge movable and immovable properties, illegally earned through extortion/levy amount from the road contractors. owners of the stone crushers machines, MNREGA works, 11 2026:JHHC:2958-DB businessmen. private transporters, Mine contractors and other contractors who are engaged in development projects in different districts of Jharkhand and the said acquired properties are Proceeds of Terrorism. They collect funds by unleashing terror in the minds of populace of the area and thereby the acts committed by the members of the "terrorist gang" is commission of offence as defined of terrorist act in section 15 (1) (a) (i) of UA (P) Act, 1967 as amended.

16.5: Appreciating the gravity of the offence in the instant crime, the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section 5 of section 6 read with section 8 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, vide MHA, New Delhi CTCR Division Order no. 11011/51/2017/IS-IV dated 16.01.2018, directed National Investigation Agency (NIA) to take up investigation of the case and accordingly the case was re-registered as NIA case No. RC-02/2018/NIA/DLI dated 19.01.2018 under sections 212, 213, 414, 34 of IPC, section 13, 17 & 40 of UA(P) Act and Section 17 of CLA Act.

16.6: During further investigation, it has been established that besides collection of the extorted money in the form of Levy, A- 6 is also investing the extorted money in the Companies opened in the name of his wives A-13 and A-14 and also A-7 and A-17) formed as a part of the larger conspiracy plan. Therefore, as per plan of A-6 and on his directions, his associates/ members of PLFI are channelizing levy amount into alleged legal manner. In addition, it has been established the PLFI operatives and the associates conspired together in the name of alleged surrender of A-6, Supremo of PLFI, and huge amount of extorted money were paid through Hawala transaction.

16.8: The case was kept under further investigation. During the course of further investigation, it surfaced that the absconding accused Dinesh Gope (A-6), supremo of PLFI, continued to channelize levy amount into legitimate means by depositing/transferring into the bank accounts of his wives(A 13) and A-14 and associates by using several Pragya Kendra operative through various banking channels and also in the bank accounts of Companies opened in the name of his wives, 12 2026:JHHC:2958-DB A-13 and A-14, and Sumant Kumar (A-7) and the Fuleshwar Gope.

17.5 Role and activities of the accused A-7,A-8,A-9,A-10, A 11 & A-12:-

It is established that Dinesh Gope is involved in collecting levy directly and through his operatives/caders from transporters contractors etc. As part of the conspiracy, A-6, through his associates was investing the extorted amount in dubious companies. Further banking channels were also used to legalize the illegally extorted money. Investigation further revealed that Dinesh Gope mobilised various associates /couriers to operate for furtherance of his unlawful activities. Initially, extorted levy amount was being converted through A-1 to A-4 and post arrest of A-1 to A-4, he(A-6) assigned the same task to Sumant Kumar (A-7). As per the conspiracy, A-7 was holding the post of Director in Mix Bhavya Engicon Pvt. Ltd. (A-

18), M/s Shir Aadi Shakti Minerals Pvt. Ltd A 19) in partnership with Shakuntala Kumari (A-13), alleged second wife of Dinesh Gope. After getting funds the Dinesh Gope, Sumant Kumar (A-

7) either himself or in active association with Arun Gape (A-10) deposited extorted money into the accounts of the above dubious companies. A-6 also ensured that the finds are deposited in the account of Shiv Shaktisamridhhi Infra Pvt Ltd.(A-20), whose director was Hira Devi (A-14) first wife of Dinesh Gope and another Director was Fuleshwar Gope (A-17), Sumant Kumar(A-7) and Jitender Kumar (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 Nandlal Swarnkar(A-8), Chandra Shekhar Singh (A-9) & Navinbhai Jayantibhai Patel (A-12) and arranged/held meeting with the political leaders in the different parts of the country.

17.6: Revelations of the criminal conspiracy hatched among the accused persons for channelizing the extorted money of PLFI into legitimate means by depositing in the bank accounts of individuals and dubious companies.

17.6.1: Besides the collection of the extorted money in the form of levy, Dinesh Gope (A-6) invested the extorted money in the dubious companies formed as part of the larger conspiracy plan 13 2026:JHHC:2958-DB and on his direction, his associates/members of FLFI channelized it in the alleged legal manner. It is pertinent to mention here for this purpose, Dinesh Gope forms various modules to operate for furtherance of his unlawful activities. Initially extorted levy amount was getting converted through A-1 to A-4 and post arrest A-1 to A-5, he (A-6) assigned the same task to another module having the same Modus-operandi, with the association under the leadership the A-7. A-7 was holding the post of director in M/s Bhavya Engicon Pvt. Ltd (A-18) and M/s Shiv Aadi Shakti Minerals Ltd (A-19), with the purpose to disguise the actual intention with the partnership of Shakuntala kumari (A-13), alleged second wife of Dinesh Gope(A-6). A-13 also has been Sole Proprietor of a dubious un-registered Company named Palak Enterprises. Hira Devi (A-14), first wife of A-6 was joint director (another director is Fuleshwar Gope (A

17) of a Company namely, M/S Shiv Shaktisamridhhi Infra Pvt. Ltd (A-20). The companies, mentioned above, have been used for channelizing the funds (levy & extortion) of absconding accused A-6. After getting funds directly from Dinesh Gope (A

6), Sumant Kumar (A-7) either himself or with active association of Arun Gope (A-10), other associates of PLFI, and others, deposited extorted money in the accounts of the above dubious companies and approximately amount to the tune of approx. Ra 2,68,00,000/-(Rupees Two Crores Sixty Eight Lakhs only) were channelized into legitimate means.

17.6.2: Sumant Kumar (A-7) in close association of Jitender Kumar (A-11) hatched the criminal conspiracy in the name of alleged surrender of A-6, self- styled supremo of PLFI with the association of A-8, A-9 & A-12 and arranged/held meeting with the political leaders. As per the plan of A-6, A-7 along with his associates, were directly, deeply, discreetly involved in the larger conspiracy and in the commission of the instant crime and channelized the extorted amount into alleged legitimate means by depositing the same in the bank accounts of family members/close associates as well as companies owned by A-7, A-13, A-14, A-17 or having partnership with them. 17.7.12: During scrutiny of the Axis Bank, Ashok Nagar, Ranchi account number 916020046701699 in the name of M/S Shiv 14 2026:JHHC:2958-DB Shaktisamridhhi Infra Pvt. Ltd. (A-20). It is found that Rs. 23,50,000/- had been deposited/transferred from date of account opening Le. August 2016 to April 2018. Out of the said amount, Rs. 11,50,000/- were deposited in cash, Rs. 10,00,000/- were transferred from M/s Calvin Planners and Investors Pvt. Ltd. (they took cash and transferred the money through cheque) & Rs. 2,00,000/- from A-18. From the said account, Rs. 12,60,000/- was paid to Birendra Kumar Dubey for purchasing flat in Kolkata (in name of A-14).

17.12.12: Investigation has established that A-17 has conspired with A-6, A-7, A-14 to form a company, A-20 along with A-14, to form a dubious company A-20, to channelize the levy/extorted funds into legitimate means by raising/depositing funds in the bank account of A-20.

17.17: Offences established against accused Hira Devi @ Anita Devi (A-14):

A-14 is first wife of A-6 and is well acquainted with the facts that A-6 is a terrorist and chief of PLFI (People's Liberation Front of India) and collects/raises levy through extortion. A-14 has criminally conspired with the members/associates of PLFI, an Unlawful Association and terrorist gang proscribed by the state of Jharkhand, namely A-6, A-7, A 1, A-10, A- 15, A-16 & A-17 on the direction of A-6, A-14 had formed a Company namely, M/S Shiv Shaktisamridhhi Infra Pvt. Ltd (A-20), along with partnership of A-18 Further, A-14 used to directly or indirectly, raise or collect funds, either from legitimate or illegitimate sources or persons namely A-1, A-6, A-7, A-10, A-15, A-16 & A 17 and other associates of A-6, knowing fully well that such funds are likely to be used by PLFI, a terrorist gang, for their nefarious/terrorist activities. A-14 is deeply involved in the larger conspiracy and the commission of instant crime and was channelizing the extorted amount into legitimate means by depositing the same in her individual bank accounts and A-20.

It has been proved that A- 14 had knowingly held the huge amount of levy, collected through extortion by PLFI, and the said levy amount were used for purchasing flat and her personal use. A-14 has also knowingly hidden her identity for the purpose of fraud and impersonation and opened a bank 15 2026:JHHC:2958-DB account in Central Bank of India with a forged Aadhaar Card in the name of Anita Devi for raising/collecting levy amount and channelizing the extorted money. A-14, on the direction of A-6 and with association of A-1, A-7, A-10, A-15 & A- 16, was deeply involved in the larger conspiracy and in the commission of the instant crime by channelizing the extorted amount as per the plan of PLFI. She knowingly held the amount derived/collected through extortion/levy by PLFI operatives from commission of any terrorist act (levy, extortion) or acquired through the terrorist fund, and invested it into A-20 and her individual bank accounts, for purchasing Flat and personal use. A-14, on the directions of A-6 and with the association of A-1, A-7, A- 10, A-13, A-15, A-16 and A-17, was deeply involved in the larger conspiracy and in the commission of the instant crime and was channelizing the extorted amount as per the plan of PLFI.-----

17.20: Offences established against Fuleshwar Gope, the present appellant (A-17):

It is established that A-17 being an associate of PLFI, is well acquainted with the facts that A-6 is a terrorist and chief of PLFI and levy through extortion. A-17 has criminally conspired with the members/associates of PLFI, an Unlawful Association and terrorist gang proscribed by the state of Jharkhand, namely A-6, A-7, A-14. On the direction of A-6, A-17 had formed a Company namely, M/S Shiv Shaktisamridhhi Infra Pvt. Ltd (A-20), along with partnership of A-14. Further, A-17 criminally conspired to directly or indirectly, raise or collect funds, either from legitimate or illegitimate sources or persons knowing fully well that such funds are likely to be used by PLFI, a terrorist gang, for their nefarious/terrorist activities. A-17, on the direction of A-6, knowingly held the amount derived/collected through extortion/Levy by PLFI and channelized it into the bank account of A-20. A-17, on the directions of A- 6 and with the association of A-7 and A-14, was deeply involved in the larger conspiracy and in the commission of the instant crime and was channelizing the extorted amount as per the plan of PLFI. Thereby, Fuleshwar Gope (A-17) committed offences under 16 2026:JHHC:2958-DB section 120B of IPC read with sections 17, 18, 21 & 22(C) of the UA (P) Act and sec 17(i), (ii) of the CLA Act, 1908. 17.21 Offences established against M/s Shiv Shaktisamridhhi Infra Pvt. Ltd (A-20):

It is established that on the direction of A-6, chief of PLFI, a terrorist gang and unlawful association proscribed by the State of Jharkhand, A-14 formed a Company namely, M/S Shiv Shaktisamridhhi Infra Pvt. Ltd (A-20) along with A-17. A-20 has been used to directly or indirectly, raise or collect funds, either from legitimate or illegitimate sources or persons. Further, A-20 has been used for the purpose of channelizing the extortion/levy amount of A-6. In the garb of doing transparent business, A-20 became a frontal company to legitimize levy amounts collected by A-6 as huge amount of money was deposited in the account of A-20 by A-7, A-10, A-14, A-17 and other associates of A-6. The Axis bank account of A-20 shows that A-14 booked a flat by paying amount of Rs 12,60,000, A-20 was not concerned with any conduct of business work and their bank account has been used only for channelizing the terrorist fund pertaining to A-6 for acquiring the immovable/movable property by using this fund and if left unabated, the profit earned from A-20 could have been further used to purchase properties, arms and ammunitions and explosives to carry out terrorist activities by PLFI. Thereby, M/s Shiv Shaktisamridhhi Infra Pvt Ltd (A-20) committed offences under sections 17, 21 & 22 (C) of the UA (P) Act."

43. Thus, from perusal of the charge-sheet it appears that Dinesh Gope (A 6) channelizes levy amount into legitimate means by depositing/ transferring into the bank accounts of his wives A-13 and A-14 with the help of Sumant Kumar (A-7) and the present appellant Fuleshwar Gope (A17), the present appellant.

44. The specific role of the present appellant Fuleshwar Gope has been mentioned in para 17.20 of the chargesheet wherein it is alleged that petitioner (A-17) being associate of PLFI was well acquainted with the facts that A-6 is terrorist and Chief of the PLFI and he used to collects levy through extortion.

45. It has further come during the investigation that A17 i.e present appellant has criminally conspired with the members associates of 17 2026:JHHC:2958-DB the PLFI an unlawful association and terrorist gang proscribed by the State of Jharkhand namely A 6 and A 7, A 14 and the present appellant on the direction of the A 6 formed a company namely M/s Shiv Shakti Samridhi Infra Pvt. Ltd. (A 20).

46. Further it appears from the aforesaid paragraphs that A-14 and A-17 i.e. present appellant criminally conspired directly or indirectly and they raised or collected fund from legitimate or illegitimate source or the persons likely to be used by PLFI for their nefarious terrorist activities. The appellant Fuleshwar Gope on the direction of the A-6 knowingly held the amount collected through levy by PLFI and channelized it into the bank account of A 20 in association of Sumant Kumar A -7 and Hira Devi(A -14).

47. From aforementioned paragraph of 2nd supplementary charge-

sheet it appears that there is prima facie allegation against petitioner that he by making criminal conspiracy invested extortion money collected by PLFI cadre on the direction of the PLFI supremo namely Dinesh Gope (A-6) with the help of Shakuntala Kumari (A-13) , Hira Devi alias Anita Devi (A 14) ,Sumant Kumar @ Pawan Kumar (A 7) , Chandra Shekhar Singh (A 9) which was used by the PLFI supremo for anti-National activities challenging the sovereignty and integrity as well as national interest of Government of India.

48. Thus from aforementioned paragraphs of 2nd supplementary 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 and the appellant, has criminally conspired with the members/associates of PLFI, an Unlawful Association and terrorist gang proscribed by the state of Jharkhand, namely Dinesh Gope (A-6), Sumant Kumar (A-7), Hira Devi (A-14) and further on the directions of Dinesh Gope A-6, A- 17 (Fuleshwar Gope) the appellant, had formed a Company namely, M/S Shiv Shakti Samridhhi Infra Pvt. Ltd (A-20), in partnership with Hira Devi (A- 14). Further appears that the present appellant 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 of M/s Shiv Shakti Samriddhi Intra Pvt. Ltd. (A

20). 49. Thus, prima-facie it appears that the present appellant on the directions of Dinesh Gope (A 6) and with the association of Sumant Kumar (A-7) and Hira Devi (A-14), was deeply involved in the larger 18 2026:JHHC:2958-DB conspiracy and was channelizing the extorted amount as per the plan of PLFI a proscribed terrorist organization.

50. The learned counsel for the appellant by referring to the certificate issued by the Registrar of Company wherein Appellant is shown as the Director of M/s. Shiv Shaktisamridhhi Infra Pvt. Ltd. (A

20) has contended that the said document as has been appended by way of a supplementary affidavit by the respondent NIA, cannot be said to be the cogent evidence to implicate the appellant in the commission of crime.

51. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent NIA has submitted that that the said document which has been appended in the supplementary affidavit is genuine and reliable as such the contention regarding the genuineness of the document is totally misplaced.

52. This Court, after appreciating the aforesaid argument, is of the view that since this Court is to make out a prima-facie view based upon the principle as provided under Section 43D(5) of the U.A.(P) Act, therefore, is of the view that the genuineness of the document is not looked into at this stage, rather, for the purpose of making a prima-facie view, the document pertaining to creation of the said company, prima-facie is available against the appellant.

53. Further, The learned counsel for the appellant has taken the ground of parity and submits that the other co-accused person, namely, Jitendra Kumar and Jai Prakash Singh Bhuiyan has been directed to be released on bail by co-ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 08.05.2023 and 05.01.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.514 of 2020 and Cr. Appeal (DB) No.14 of 2021 respectively.

54. 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.

55. 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.

2026:JHHC:2958-DB

56. 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 granted bail. It is further submitted that co-ordinate Bench of this Court had denied the privilege of bail to another-co accused namely Navinbhai Jayantibhai Patel in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 556 of 2020 and the case of the present appellant is nearer to the Navinbhai Jayantibhai Patel, as such the present appellant is not entitled for the bail on the instance of parity.

63. It is evident from aforesaid paragraph that the major charge, which has been levelled against the Jai Prakash Singh Bhuiya, 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.

64. Further so far, the other co-accused namely Jitendra Kumar is concern 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.

65. 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.

66. This Court has already referred hereinabove the allegation against the present appellant that he is one of the Director of the Company in the name and style of M/s. Shiv Shaktisamridhhi Infra Pvt. Ltd. and prima facie allegation against present appellant is like that he, by making criminal conspiracy invested extortion money collected by PLFI cadre on the direction of the PLFI supremo namely Dinesh Gope (A-6) with the help of Shakuntala Kumari (A-13) , Hira Devi @ Anita Devi (A 14), Sumant Kumar @ Pawan Kumar (A 7) , Chandra Shekhar Singh (A 9), which was used by the PLFI supremo 20 2026:JHHC:2958-DB for anti-National activities challenging the sovereignty and integrity as well as national interest of Government of India.

67. The document has also been appended with the supplementary affidavit, issued by the Registrar of Company from whose Office the said Company has been registered. However, the genuineness of the said document has been questioned but since this Court is to make out a prima-facie view based upon the principle as provided under Section 43D(5) of the U.A.(P) Act, therefore, is of the view that the genuineness is not looked into at this stage, rather, for the purpose of making a prima-facie view, the document pertaining to creation of the said company by the Office, prima-facie is available against the appellant.

68. This Court, after taking into consideration the fact that this appellant was an active member of the Company in the capacity of one of the Director of the Company, i.e., M/s. Shiv Shaktisamridhhi Infra Pvt. Ltd., while, on the other hand, the allegation against the co accused persons, is on different footing hence, is of the view that the principle of parity will not be applicable.

71. 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.

72. This Court, based upon the aforesaid reason, is of the view that the order passed by the learned court while rejecting the prayer for bail, suffers from no infirmity.

74. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed."

24. Thus, from the aforesaid paragraphs, it is evident that earlier the prayer for bail of the preset appellant has been rejected by this Court 21 2026:JHHC:2958-DB after due appreciation of the evidence available on record and further, taking into consideration the culpability of the present appellant and his nexus with extremist outfit.

25. Against the said order, the present appellant has preferred the Special Leave Petition being SLP No. 7703 of 2024 before the Hon'ble Apex Court but vide order dated 03.02.2025 the said petition has also been dismissed, for ready reference, the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court is being referred herein, which reads as under:

"1. Petitioner lays challenge to the order dated 21st March, 2014 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand in Cr. Appeal (DB)No.767/2022, whereby the petitioner's application for bail stands rejected. The prosecution alleges the petitioner to be the principal accused in carrying out activities, illegal in nature, and, against the interest of the State.

2. The Petitioner is facing trial in connection with Bero P.S. Case No.67 of 2016.

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.

7. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

2026:JHHC:2958-DB

26. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that the Hon'ble Supreme Court even taking note of the fact that bail has been granted to the accused no.12, has dismissed the prayer for bail of the present appellant and the Hon'ble Apex Court while dismissing the said petition has also taken into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case relating to the petitioner/present appellant.

27. It needs to refer herein that the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment rendered in Gurwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 109 while taking into consideration the judgment as rendered in National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (supra) has 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.

28. 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 23 2026:JHHC:2958-DB 'exercise' of the general power to grant bail under the UAP Act is severely restrictive in scope.

29. 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.

30. 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).

31. 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, 24 2026:JHHC:2958-DB 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.

32. At the cost of repetition, it needs to refer herein that the appellant earlier prayed for bail before the learned trial court by preferring Misc. Criminal Application No. 566 of 2022 but the same had been rejected vide order dated 19.05.2022, against which, appeal was preferred being Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 767 of 2022 which has also been dismissed, vide order dated 21.03.2024.

33. Thereafter, the appellant preferred Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court vide SLP No. 7703 of 2024, which was dismissed vide order dated 03.02.2025. Thereafter, the present appellant again preferred Misc. Cr. Application No. 1476 of 2025 which has been dismissed, vide order dated 18.08.2025, against which, the present appeal has been preferred.

34. The learned trial court in the order dated 18.08.2025 has taken into consideration that prayer for bail of the appellant had already been rejected up to the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Special Court while going through the 2nd Supplementary Charge Sheet filed by N.I.A. dated 23.07.2020 has taken into consideration the culpability of the present appellant. In the said 2nd Supplementary Charge-Sheet, the allegation against the petitioner is that he is an associate of P.L.F.I. and he was 25 2026:JHHC:2958-DB well acquainted with the facts that Dinesh Gope (A-6) is a terrorist and Chief of a terrorist gang namely P.L.F.I. and collects / raises levy through extortion. On the direction of said Dinesh Gope (A-6), accused/petitioner (appellant herein) (A-17) formed a Company, namely, M/s Shiv Shakti Samridhi Infra Pvt. Ltd. (A-20). The petitioner (A-17), on the direction of A-6, knowingly held the amount derived/collected through extortion/Levy by the members of P.L.F.I. (banned terrorist outfit) and channelized it into the bank account of M/s Shiv Shakti Samridhi Infra Pvt. Ltd. (A-20). Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, the learned special court has observed in the order impugned herein that a prima facie case is being made out against the appellant on the basis of evidence collected by the NIA during investigation.

35. Hence, the learned trial court, taking into consideration the seriousness of the crime and role played by the petitioner, has rejected the prayer for bail of the present appellant.

36. Thus, from the aforesaid factual aspect, it is evident that earlier this Court has already considered the prayer for bail of the appellant, on merit, and the said order has already been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court and now, the learned counsel for the appellant has renewed the prayer for bail of the present appellant upon the the ground of parity as well as custody of the appellant who is languishing in judicial custody since, 2020.

Issue of long incarceration 26 2026:JHHC:2958-DB

37. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer herein that only the long incarceration is not the ground to be looked into for enlarging the accused on bail, rather, the accusation so made against the accused persons as also societal impact is also to be taken care of.

38. It requires to refer herein that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab(supra) taking into consideration the ratio of judgment of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713 has observed that mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offences as one involved in the instant case cannot be used as a ground to grant bail, for ready reference, the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under:

"46. As already discussed, the material available on record indicates the involvement of the appellant in furtherance of terrorist activities backed by members of banned terrorist organisation involving exchange of large quantum of money through different channels which needs to be deciphered and therefore in such a scenario if the appellant is released on bail there is every likelihood that he will influence the key witnesses of the case which might hamper the process of justice. Therefore, mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offences as one involved in the instant case cannot be used as a ground to grant bail. Hence, the aforesaid argument on behalf of the appellant cannot be accepted."

39. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its recent judgment in the case of Gulfisha Fatima versus State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1 while appreciating the implication of Article 21 vis-vis Section 43D (5) of the Act 1967 and taking into the consideration the ratio laid down in the case of Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) has categorically observed that If prosecutions alleging offences which implicate the sovereignty, integrity, or security of the State, delay does 27 2026:JHHC:2958-DB not operate as a trump card that automatically displaces statutory restraint, for ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are being quoted as under:

"35. The proper constitutional question, therefore, is not whether Article 21 is superior to Section 43D (5). The proper question is how Article 21 is to be applied where Parliament has expressly conditioned the grant of bail in relation to offences alleged to implicate national security. The law does not contemplate an either-or approach. Nor does it contemplate an unstructured blending of statutory and constitutional considerations. What is required is disciplined judicial scrutiny that gives due regard to both.

47. A closely allied consideration is the role attributed to the accused. Prosecutions under the UAPA may allege varying degrees of participation, ranging from peripheral acts to strategic, organisational, or ideological centrality. The constitutional significance of prolonged incarceration cannot be assessed uniformly for all accused regardless of role. Where the attribution suggests a central or organising role in the alleged design, the need for circumspection before constitutional intervention displaces a statutory embargo is correspondingly greater. Conversely, where the role is peripheral or episodic, prolonged incarceration may more readily assume a punitive character.

56. It therefore becomes necessary to state, with clarity, the governing approach. In prosecutions alleging offences which implicate the sovereignty, integrity, or security of the State, delay does not operate as a trump card that automatically displaces statutory restraint. Rather, delay serves as a trigger for heightened judicial scrutiny. The outcome of such scrutiny must be determined by a proportional and contextual balancing of legally relevant considerations, including (i) the gravity and statutory character of the offence alleged, (ii) the role attributed to the accused within the alleged design or conspiracy, (iii) the strength of the prima facie case as it emerges at the limited threshold contemplated under the special statute, and (iv) the 28 2026:JHHC:2958-DB extent to which continued incarceration, viewed cumulatively in the facts of the case, has become demonstrably disproportionate so as to offend the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21.

58. In Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, this Court expressly cautioned against the mechanical invocation of prolonged incarceration as a ground for bail in cases involving serious offences under special enactments. The judgment reiterates that the gravity of the offence, the legislative context, and the prima facie material on record cannot be eclipsed merely because the trial has taken time.

59. This Court in CBI v. Dayamoy Mahato reiterated that while Article 21 remains paramount, it does not operate in a vacuum divorced from competing constitutional interests. The Court emphasized that claims to liberty must be examined in the totality of circumstances, particularly where allegations implicate organised criminality or matters of public interest. Delay, though undoubtedly significant, was held not to assume the character of an absolute or solitary determinant. The emphasis, once again, was on structured judicial reasoning rather than on formulaic outcomes."

40. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid settled position of law, it is evident that mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offences, as one involved in the instant case, cannot be used as a ground to grant bail.

41. There is no dispute and it cannot be disputed that the jurisprudence of Article 21 has, as it develops, recognised various facets to be intrinsic to the right to life and liberty such as speedy trial, timely completion of investigation, fair trial etc. but at the same time circumspection in granting the relief of bail in offences that harmful to sovereignty and integrity of the nation such as in this case, stems from a place of concern, understandably legitimate at that, about public order, societal security, overall peace and the general deterrent force 29 2026:JHHC:2958-DB in criminal law.

42. The scales of Justice must balance on the one hand-the constitutionally consecrated and jealously guarded right under Article 21 and on the other, the recognition that individual liberty is not absolute and is subject to just exceptions i.e. the paramount considerations of national interest, sovereignty and integrity of the nation.

43. There can be no manner of doubt on the proposition that Article 21 rights are placed on a pedestal, and rightly so, at the same time, though, the individual cannot always be the centre of attention. Certain cases such as the instant one demand, by their very nature and effect that the issue presented is looked at from a much wider point of view i.e., national security. We observe, therefore, that while Article 21 rights must always be protected, but however, in cases where the security or integrity of the nation is called into question, the long incarceration cannot be the sole ground of consideration.

44. The act of the accused persons must be looked at, on the whole, and all relevant factors must be given due consideration while granting or denying bail. Needless to add, any Court seized of bail application(s) arising out of such offences must record, in their order the reasons and factors that weighed with them in the ultimate outcome.

45. In view of the discussion made above it is the settled fact that the rights of an individual are always subservient to the nation's 30 2026:JHHC:2958-DB interest.

46. Further, in the case of Gurwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra) and in the case of the Union of India vs. Barakathullah etc., reported in 2024 INSC 452, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has expressed its concern to the threat raised by terrorist organizations and held that where the accusations against the respondents are prima facie true, the mandate contained in the proviso to Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act would become applicable and the accused would not be released on bail.

47. Herein, the learned counsel for the respondent NIA has submitted at Bar that in the instant case, the evidences have already been closed and trial is at the stage of 313 Cr.P.C and if the present appellant is allowed to be released on bail, then, he will get all opportunities to tamper with the evidence as well as influence the witnesses or he may abscond.

48. On the basis discussion made hereinabove, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that appellant is eligible for bail on the ground of custody, is not fit to be accepted.

Issue of parity

49. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that after 03.02.2025, i.e., when prayer for bail of the present appellant has been rejected, the other co-accused person who are similarly placed namely, Sumant Kumar (A-7), Shakuntla Kumari (A-13) and Herra Devi 31 2026:JHHC:2958-DB (A-14) have been directed to be released on bail by the Hon'ble Apex Court and by co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

50. In the backdrop of aforesaid contention, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that since, the other similarly placed co-accused persons have already been granted bail, therefore, the present appellant may be enlarged on bail.

51. 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, against whom, parity has been claimed.

52. 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 similar, then, only the principle of parity will be applied 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.

53. 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 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.

2026:JHHC:2958-DB

54. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Tarun Kumar Versus Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, reported in (2023) 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.

55. It needs to refer herein that the Hon'ble Apex Court on 03.02.2025 while rejecting the prayer for bail of the present appellant has taken into consideration the fact that the bail has been granted to co-accused (Accused No.12) by a Coordinate Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the very same day and even thereafter, the prayer for bail of the present appellant has been rejected and while rejecting the bail, the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically observed that "in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case relating to the petitioner, we are not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail"

56. In the light of aforesaid settled position of law and factual aspect this Court has examined the allegations, as have been alleged against the present appellant vis-à-vis, the other co-accused, against whom, parity has been claimed.

57. It is evident from the perusal of charge-sheet that NIA in the investigation found that the present petitioner (A-17) 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 of M/s Shiv Shaktisamridhhi Infra Pvt Ltd (A-20) which is mentioned in various paragraphs of the 2nd supplementary charge-sheet. 33

2026:JHHC:2958-DB

58. Thus, from perusal of the charge-sheet, it appears that Dinesh Gope (A-6) channelized levy amount into legitimate means by depositing/ transferring into the bank accounts of his wives A-13 and A-14 with the help of the present appellant.

59. This Court has already taken note of the allegation against the present appellant while earlier rejecting the prayer for bail of the present appellant that he is one of the Director of the Company in the name and style of M/s. Shiv Shaktisamridhhi Infra Pvt. Ltd. and prima facie allegation against present appellant is like that he, by making criminal conspiracy invested extortion money collected by PLFI cadre on the direction of the PLFI supremo namely Dinesh Gope (A-6) with the help of Shakuntala Kumari (A-13) , Hira Devi @ Anita Devi (A 14), Sumant Kumar @ Pawan Kumar (A 7), which was used by the PLFI supremo for anti-National activities challenging the sovereignty and integrity as well as national interest of Government of India.

60. This Court, after taking into consideration the fact that this appellant was an active member of the Company in the capacity of one of the Directors of the Company, i.e., M/s. Shiv Shaktisamridhhi Infra Pvt. Ltd., while, on the other hand, the allegation against the co-accused persons, is on different footing as it is apparent from record that they were assisting the present appellant in investing extortion money collected by PLFI cadre. It appears from the material available on record that the present appellant played a pivotal role in operating the financial module of PLFI and he, knowingly held and moved terror funds under the pretext 34 2026:JHHC:2958-DB of company operations, thereby, enabling the PLFI to sustain its unlawful activities and further its secessionist objectives, hence, is of the view that the principle of parity will not be applicable.

61. Further, this Court is of the view that since, in the instant case trial is at fag end and further, this Court has already expressed its view on merit in earlier appeal which has been filed by the appellant for prayer of bail, therefore, it is considered view of this Court that it is not required for this Court to reiterate its view on merit.

62. 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.

63. This Court, based upon the aforesaid reason, is of the view that the order passed by the learned court while rejecting the prayer for bail, suffers from no infirmity.

64. On basis of the discussion made hereinabove and taking into consideration that this Court has earlier expressed its view on merit with 35 2026:JHHC:2958-DB regard to the prayer for grant of bail of the present appellant which has not been interfered with by the Hon'ble Apex Court and further there is no vital change in circumstances as no fresh ground has been agitated herein as also taking into consideration the submission advanced on behalf of the respondent-NIA that the trial is at fag end, this Court is of the view that the order impugned dated 18.08.2025 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1476 of 2025 requires no interference.

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

66. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, also stands dismissed.

67. It is made clear that any observation made herein will not prejudice the case of the appellant in course of trial and view as expressed by this Court is only limited to the instant appeal.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) I Agree (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) 04/02/2026 Rohit/-A.F.R. Uploaded on 05.02.2026 36

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court