Bhanwar Lal Changal @ Bhanwar Lal vs The National Investigation Agency
2025 Latest Caselaw 7531 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Bhanwar Lal Changal @ Bhanwar Lal vs The National Investigation Agency on 5 December, 2025

Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Deepak Roshan

                       Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:36490-DB )

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 787 of 2025

Bhanwar Lal Changal @ Bhanwar Lal, S/o Sri Moola Ram Changal, R/o
Behind Police Line, Jat Colony, 173 VTC, Nagaur, PO: VTC, PS: Kotwali,
Dist.: Nagaur, Rajasthan.                        ...   Appellant
                                  Versus
       The National Investigation Agency          ...     Respondent
                                   ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

For the Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, Advocate For the NIA : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Spl.P.P. (NIA)

---

02/05.12.2025 Heard Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, the learned Spl.P.P. (NIA).

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.05.2025 passed by the learned AJC XVI cum Spl. Judge, NIA, Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application No. 822/2025, arising out of Special (NIA) Case No. 4/2021 (RC-04/2021/NIA/RNC), whereby and whereunder, the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected.

3. The appellant had earlier moved for grant of bail before this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 272/2024 which however was dismissed vide order dated 20.06.2024.

4. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, the learned counsel for the appellant has read the statement of Virendra Singh, Head Constable who has been arrayed as PW-62 and has submitted that nothing has come in the statement of the witnesses to suggest that there was connivance between the appellant and the main accused Kartik Behra in pilferage of arms and ammunitions from the camp for furthering terrorist activities. It has been submitted that the appellant has been implicated only on the basis of suspicion. The learned counsel submits that out of 163 charge- sheet witnesses, only 16 witnesses have been examined so far and there is no chance of the trial being concluded in the near future. The appellant is in custody since 12.07.2023 and the possibility of the trial being completed in the near future is bleak. Therefore, the appellant deserves the privilege of bail. The learned counsel in support of such contention has referred to the case of "Jalaluddin Khan versus Union of India"

reported in (2024) 10 SCC 574 as well as the case of "Athar Parwez versus Union of India" reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3762.

5. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, the learned Spl.P.P. (NIA) has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant and has referred to paragraph-17.5.1 while submitting that arms and ammunitions were found in an abandoned room situated behind the Battalion Magazine and unaccounted ammunitions as well which was locked and the keys were kept in possession of the present appellant. It has further been submitted that the examination of the witnesses at pargraph-17.5.3 categorically indicates the manner in which the appellant in connivance with Kartik Behra and others had pilfered arms and ammunitions from the BSF camp. It has also been submitted that the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Mr. Das, the learned Spl.P.P. (NIA) has further submitted that the allegation against the appellant which has been found to be proved in course of investigation makes out a prima facie case under section 43-D (5) of the UA(P) Act and therefore, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the affidavits as well as the charge-sheet brought on record.

7. On the earlier occasion, the prayer for bail of the appellant was rejected on the following grounds:

"14. The role and offences established against the appellant in the charge sheet seems to be on the basis of certain incriminating findings against the appellant which has been recorded at Para 17.5 of the charge sheet. From a perusal of Para 17.5.1 it transpires that the Commandant of 116 BN BSF was requested to look into the pilfered ammunitions in the 116 BN, Headquarters by the ATS team and on a check of the arms and ammunitions deficiency of 9 MM Ball and 5.56 MM CTN surfaced and in an abandoned room situated behind the Battalion Magazine of 116 BN BSF huge quantity of unaccounted ammunitions, empty fire cases and other control items were found and though the room was locked, but the same was opened with the key which was in the possession of the appellant. In fact the details of recovery from the said premises seem to assume dangerous proportions and it cannot be said that any proper explanation has

been submitted by the appellant with respect to the said ammunitions. The involvement of the appellant further strengthens from the statement of several witnesses recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. as would appear from Para-17.5.3 of the Charge Sheet. The appellant seems to have undertaken a ploy of removing the deficiency in the ammunitions by contacting the Kote NCOs of 'C', 'D' and 'F' Company and ask them to provide 1120 rounds i.e. 1 carton from each company without informing the superiors and after the same was supplied on the next date the ammunitions were returned to the company from where it had been supplied. This would therefore mean that the appellant having taken undue advantage of his position as a Head Constable in the BSF had adopted an almost foolproof plan to continue supply ammunitions to the terrorist gang through Kartik Behra without arousing any suspicion till his plan was busted by the NIA during investigation of the case."

8. We may also refer to pargraph-17.5.1. which furthermore specifies the role played by the appellant in the pilferage of arms and ammunitions and the same reads as under:

"17.5.1 During the investigation, on the disclosure of Arun Singh (A-

5) name of arrested accused Kartik Behera (A-9) was revealed who used to pilfer ammunition of 9mm, 7.62 mm & 5.56 mm calibre from BSF Kote/Magazine since 2016 and the same was supplied to accused A-5. Thereafter, ATS team moved to 116 Ea BSF to question A-9 about the instant crime. A-9 accepted his involvement in illegal transporting of ammunition before the ATS Team Jharkhand. The Commandant of the 116 BN BSF was requested to look for presence of pilfered ammunition in the 116 BN headquarters. A team of officers of 116 BN BSF conducted checking of arms & ammunitions of Kote of SP(HQr) Company. During checking deficiency of ammunition of 9 MM ball and 5.56 M CTN were surfaced. Further in an abandoned room situated behind the Battalion Magazine of 116 BN BSF, near to Gas Godown/Magazine, huge quantity of unaccounted ammunitions, empty fire cases (EFC) and other controlled items were found. This room was locked and its key was kept with HC Bhanwar Lal Chhangal(A-13) which was opened and searched by the same team of BSF officers."

9. It appears that recently the prayer for bail of some of the co- accused persons have been rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1280 of 2022 and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 770 of 2025.

10. So far as the reliance, which has been made in the case of "Jalaluddin Khan versus Union of India" (supra), Mr. Dubey, the learned counsel for the appellant has referred to a paragraph-33, which

reads as under:

"33. Even in a case like the present case where there are stringent conditions for the grant of bail in the relevant statutes, the same rule holds good with only modification that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute are satisfied. The rule also means that once a case is made out for the grant of bail, the court cannot decline to grant bail. If the courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of our Constitution."

11. Mr. Das, the learned Spl.P.P. (NIA) has referred to the same judgment in the following paragraph:

"30. Therefore, on plain reading of the charge-sheet, it is not possible to record a conclusion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the appellant of commission of offences punishable under UAPA is prima facie true. We have taken the charge-sheet and the statement of witness Z as they are without conducting a mini-trial. Looking at what we have held earlier, it is impossible to record a prima facie finding that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the appellant of commission of offences under UAPA was prima facie true. No antecedents of the appellant have been brought on record."

12. While referring to paragraph-30 of said judgment, as we have quoted above, Mr. Das, the learned Spl.P.P. (NIA) has submitted that the ground of bail was on account of the fact that there was no reasonable ground for believing that the accusaition against the said appellant of commission of offence punishable under the UA(P) Act is prima facie true. In such context, he has stated that so far as the present case is concerned there are clear cut evidence which has been brought on record in course of the investigation which depicts that prima facie case against the appellant is made out.

13. In the case of "Athar Parwez versus Union of India" (supra), it has been held as follows:

"32. The Appellant was arrested on 12.07.2022. He has undergone custody for more than two years and four months. Chargesheet was filed on 07.01.2023 but till date charges have not been framed which is an admitted position. There are 40 accused and 354 witnesses cited by the prosecution to be examined. There can be no doubt that the trial is not likely to complete soon, and as has been

laid down by various judgments of this Court as has been referred to above, the Appellant cannot be allowed to languish in jail indefinitely and that too without a trial. If such an approach is allowed Article 21 of the Constitution of India would stand violated. The ratio as laid down by this Court in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (supra) as also the other judgments in Javed Ghulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (supra) and Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India (supra) would be applicable to this case and would squarely apply entitling the Appellant for grant of bail.

33. The co-accused of the Appellant, Md. Jalaluddin has on similar grounds been granted the same benefit. In the said case, this Court in paragraph 21 has held as follows:

"21. Before we part with the Judgment, we must mention here that the Special Court and the High Court did not consider the material in the charge sheet objectively. Perhaps the focus was more on the activities of PFI, and therefore, the appellant's case could not be properly appreciated. When a case is made out for a grant of bail, the Courts should not have any hesitation in granting bail. The allegations of the prosecution may be very serious. But, the duty of the Courts is to consider the case for grant of bail in accordance with the law. Even in a case like the present case where there are stringent conditions for the grant of bail in the relevant statutes, the same rule holds good with only modification that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute are satisfied. The rule also means that once a case is made out for the grant of bail, the Court cannot decline to grant bail. If the Courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of our Constitution."

(Emphasis Supplied)

14. While stressing on the aforesaid, Mr. Dubey, the learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated that the appellant is in custody since long and there is no possibility of the trial being concluded in the near future.

15. However, it seems that the appellant has remained in custody for about 2 years 7 months and according to Mr. Das, twenty witnesses have already been examined and the number of witnesses to be examined have been curtailed which would enable the learned trial Court to conclude the trial at the earliest.

16. As we have noticed above, there is a specific finding recorded in the charge-sheet about the involvement of the appellant in pilferage of arms and ammunitions in his capacity as a Head Constable in the Border

Security Force and merely because the appellant has remained in custody for about 2 years 7 months, the same would not dissipate the prima facie finding of the involvement of the appellant in the commission of the offence and in such circumstances, the embargo under section 43-D (5) of the UA(P) Act would automatically get activated and consequent to the aforesaid findings, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal which accordingly stands dismissed.

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

(DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.) 05.12.2025 S.B. Uploaded on 06.12.2025