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