Jharkhand High Court
Pankaj Kumar Singh vs Union Of India Through Nia on 4 November, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:33093-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.770 of 2025
-----
Pankaj Kumar Singh, aged about 50 years old, son of late Shyam
Nandan Singh, resident of village -UPG High School, Azad Nagar,
Bhuli, PO & PS Bank More, District- Dhanbad.... ... Appellant
Versus
Union of India through NIA .... ... Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
-------
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar-III, Advocate;
Mr. Sabyasanchi, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Spl.P.P.
------
CAV ON: 16/10/2025 PRONOUNCED ON:04 /11/2025
[Per se: Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.]
1. The present Appeal has been filed under section 21(4) of
National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 read with Section 43-D of UAP
Act to set-aside the order dated 28.2.2025 passed by AJC-XVI Ranchi-
cum-Special Judge NIA, Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application No. 316
of 2025 by which bail of the appellant has been rejected in connection
with Special (NIA) Case No. 04 of 2021 dated 9.12.2021, arising out of
PS ATS case no. 01/2021 Ranchi, Jharkhand registered under sections
120B of IPC and section 17 CLA Act read with sections 25(1-B)a, 26
and 35 of Arms Act and sections 13,19, 20 and 21 of UA(P)Act 1967.
2. At the outset it needs to refer herein that earlier the appellant
had preferred Miscellaneous Cr. Application No. 1133 of 2022 which
was rejected vide order dated 16.7.2022, against which the present
appellant had preferred an appeal before this Court being Cr. Appeal
(DB) No. 1387 of 2022 which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order
dated 22.2.2023. Thereafter, the appellant had filed Miscellaneous
2025:JHHC:33093-DB
Criminal Application No. 847 of 2023 before the learned Trial Court
which was also rejected on 28.3.2023 and against the said order also the
present appellant had filed Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 584 of 2023 before this
Court which was dismissed on merit vide order dated 10.8.2023.
3. Thereafter, again the present appellant had preferred an application
being Misc. Criminal Application being Misc. Criminal Application No.
672/2024 but the same was again dismissed by the special court vide
order dated 08/04/2024 against which the appellant had preferred an
appeal before this Court being Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 596 of 2024 which
was dismissed on 04/12/2024.
4. Thereafter, again the appellant has preferred an application before the
special Court being Misc. Criminal Application No. 316 of 2025 but the
same was dismissed by the learned Special Judge vide order dated
28.02.2025 against which the instant appeal has been preferred.
Factual Matrix:
5. The prosecution case is based upon the typed report of sub inspector
Vishal Pandey of ATS on 14.11.2021. In his typed report SI Vishal
Pandey alleged that while investigation of the Tandwa P.S. Case No.
132/2021 he came to know that Avinash Kumar S/o Jairam Sharma and
few other persons are supplying arms and ammunitions to miscreants
and extremist groups. Thereafter, he lodged Sanha and a team of ATS
was constituted. They proceeded for Imamganj, Gaya, Bihar. On
13.11.2021 Avinash Kumar was located, identified and examined during
which he admitted that he along with one Rishi Kumar was supplying
arms and ammunitions to the armed cadres of CPI (Maoists) and other
2025:JHHC:33093-DB
terrorist gangs. Then the team proceeded to Benipur village, Salimpur PS
Patna, Bihar and identified and apprehended accused Rishi Kumar.
They stated that during the month of September 2021, co-accused Aman
Sahu asked Avinash Kumar to arrange live cartridges of INSAS rifle. On
getting the instruction, Avinash Kumar in association with accused Rishi
Kumar collected live cartridges of 5.56 MM caliber from two persons
namely Arun Kumar Singh and Pankaj Kumar Singh, the appellant
herein, and embarked to make the delivery to associates of Aman Sahu.
However, the ammunitions were not supplied to Aman Sahu gang, as
Avinash Kumar was not able to contact the Aman Sahu. So, as a safety
precaution the 450 live cartridges of INSAS rifle were hidden beside a
tree near the Shiekh Bhikhari Monument, under Ormanjhi PS, Ranchi.
Thereafter, on the pointing out of co-accused Avinash Kumar and Rishi
Kumar, 450 numbers of 5.56 MM live rounds/ammunitions were
recovered beside a tree near Sheikh Bhikhari Memorial, near Chhutupalu
Ghati within the jurisdiction of Ormanjhi police station. Based on the
recoveries and the examination of the accused, the P.S. ATS, Ranchi has
lodged FIR No. 01/2021 dated 14.11.2021 against Avinash Kumar, Rishi
Kumar, Pankaj Kumar, the appellant herein, Arun Kumar Singh, Sanjay
Kumar Singh, Moshahid Khan and other unknown accused persons.
6. It appears from the record that initially FIR was instituted by the Anti-
Terrorist Squad being ATS Ranchi P.S. Case No. 01 of 2021 for
commission of offence under Section 120-B of IPC, Section 17 of CLA
3 Act, Section 25(1-b) A/26/35 and Section 13, 19, 20, 21 of U.A.P. Act,
1967.
2025:JHHC:33093-DB
7. The Central Government in exercise of power conferred under sub-
section (5) of Section 6 read with Section 8 of the National Investigation
Agency Act, 2008 vide order no. 11011/73/2021/NIA dated 03.12.2021
directed the NIA to take the investigation.
8. In compliance of the aforesaid order, NIA After lodging of the case,
had investigated the case and filed charge-sheet wherein in addition to
the above story, as narrated above, allegation against the appellant
(arraigned as Accused A-3) has been narrated as follows:
"Investigation has revealed that accused A-3 is closely associated with
A-2, A-4 A-5 and he was a conduit between A-2 & A-5, in the supply
chain of arms and ammunitions. Investigation has also revealed that
during 2021, A-3 got instruction from accused A-5 for procuring
INSAS rifle; however, the same could not be arranged at that time.
Investigation has also established that A-4 had approached A-3 for
selling of his un-licensed Pistols and which is also corroborated by the
photographs of a pistol, shared on the WhatsApp. It is also established
from the investigation that on following occasions accused A-3 had
assisted A-2 in purchasing of ammunitions of 5.56 MM calibre. The
details are as under:-
Sl. Period No. of Live Ammunition Amount
No received by A-3
01 Feb 2020 200 Rds of 5.56 MM Rs. 5000/-
02 March 2020 200 Rds of 5.56 MM Rs. 5000/-
03 Sept 2021 450 Rds of 5.56 MM Rs. 10,000/-
9. In addition to above, some photographs of Arms have been extracted
from whatsapp messages of the appellant. In consequences of the
aforesaid, the present appellant was arrested.
2025:JHHC:33093-DB
Submissions by the learned counsel for the Appellant:
10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has
submitted that the allegation against the appellant is general and omnibus
in nature as nothing incriminating article has been recovered from the
possession of the appellant. Only on the basis of confessional statement
of co-accused, the appellant has been arrested.
11. He has further stated that till date only 19 charge-sheeted
witnesses have been examined out of 152 witnesses and, as such, it will
take an inordinate length of time in concluding the trial.
12. He has further stated that several accused persons have been
granted bail. The appellant is in judicial custody since 29.12.2021,
therefore, he may be released on bail.
Submission of the learned counsel for Union of India/NIA:
13. Mr. A.K.Das, the learned Special P.P.(NIA) has vehemently
opposed the prayer on the ground that regular bail of the appellant has
already been decided on merit vide order dated 10th August, 2023 passed
in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 584 of 2023 and also vide order dated
04.12.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 596 of 2024 by the co-
ordinate Bench of this Court, and the same have not been assailed
before the higher forum, hence, it is not available for the appellant to
renew the same prayer on the merit.
14. Further the learned counsel has submitted that an amount of Rs.
1,46,000/- has been recovered from his house and the appellant was not
only found to be acting in blatant contravention of provisions of the
Arms Act, but he was also found involved in the criminal conspiracy for
2025:JHHC:33093-DB
commission of unlawful activities. He has further stated that the
appellant had a link with the terrorist organizations and he compromising
the security of the country was supplying arms and ammunitions for his
personal gains.
15. It has been submitted that initially in the charge-sheet there
were 152 witnesses but he has submitted that NIA intends to examine
only 86 witnesses out of which 19 witnesses have already been
examined. He has further stated that the respondent is taking all
necessary steps for conclusion of the trial at the earliest.
16. He has further stated that merely being in custody for about 4
years is not a reasonable ground for grant of bail as it would be a threat
to the national security and sovereignty of the nation.
17. He has further submitted that the prayer for bail of other co-
accused namely Avinash Kumar @ Chunnu Sharma has also been
rejected vide order dated 22.09.2025 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 727
of 2025 and the nexus of the present appellant with the said co-accused
has fully been surfaced during investigation, therefore, the contention of
the learned counsel for the petitioner that the other persons have been
granted bail by this Court hence the present petitioner is also eligible for
the bail on the issue of parity, is not fit to be accepted, hence, the present
appellant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
18. He has submitted that since on earlier occasions, the prayer for
bail of the appellant was rejected considering the merits of the case, and
no fresh ground on point of law or circumstances is available herein
2025:JHHC:33093-DB
therefore, it is not required to consider the prayer of the appellant for
bail.
Analysis
19. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the
material available on record, the pleadings made on behalf of the
appellant as available in Memo of Appeal and the counter-affidavit filed
on behalf of the National Investigation Agency.
20. It is evident from the factual aspect that the informant Vishal
Pandey was investigating Tandwa PS case no. 132/2021, he got
information that one of the accused Avinash Kumar was supplying
cartridges and ammunitions to members of Naxal outfit and other anti-
social gang members. Thereafter he arrested Avinash Kumar and on the
basis of his confessional statement name of the present appellant was
emerged as a person who supplied 200 cartridges of Insas rifle in the
year 2020 to Sanjay Kumar Singh to further supply to Maoist cadres.
Thereafter petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody.
21. The present appellant had preferred Misc Criminal application
no. 1133/2022 before court for grant of bail but the same has been
rejected vide order dated 16.7.2022 against the aforesaid order the
present appellant moved before this Court in Criminal appeal (DB)
No.1387/2022 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 22.2.2023.
22. It needs to refer herein that the appellant again filed Misc
Criminal application no. 847/2023 for regular bail which was again
rejected vide order dated 28.3.2023, thereafter petitioner again moved to
2025:JHHC:33093-DB
this Court by way criminal appeal (DB) No. 584/2023 but the was
dismissed by this Court vide order dated 10.8.2023.
23. Thereafter, again the appellant had preferred an application
being Misc. Criminal Application No. 672/2024 but the same was again
dismissed by the special court vide order dated 08/04/2024 against which
the appeal being Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 596 of 2024 has been preferred
which was dismissed on merit vide order dated 04.12.2024.
24. Thereafter again the appellant had preferred an application
being Misc. Criminal Application being No. 316 of 2025 but the same
was again dismissed by the special court vide order dated 28.02.2025
against which the instant appeal has been preferred.
25. At the outset the learned counsel for the respondent NIA raised
the issue of maintainability of the instant appeal on the ground that the
prayer for bail of the appellant has already been rejected on merits by the
co-ordinate Bench of this Court twice vide order 10th August, 2023
passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 584 of 2023 and vide order dated
04.12.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 596 of 2024 and the appellant
without assailing the aforesaid orders before the higher forum, has
preferred the instant appeal.
26. Per contra, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted
that he is agitating the issue of incarceration of about four years of the
appellant and further till, date, there is no substantial progress in the trial
and few charge-sheeted witnesses have been examined.
27. This Court in order to appreciate the aforesaid contentions of
the learned counsel for the parties has gone through the order dated
2025:JHHC:33093-DB
04.12.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 596 of 2024 by which the
prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected by the co-ordinate
Bench of this Court, for ready reference the relevant paragraphs of the
aforesaid order is being quoted herein which reads as under:
"35. From perusal of the record, it is evident that admittedly, the
prayer for bail of the appellant has already been rejected on merit by
the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order 10th August, 2023
passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 584 of 2023, for ready reference the
relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid order are being quoted as under:
18. It is evident from the aforesaid paragraphs that the direct
complicity of the appellant has been surfaced who was found to be
supplying ammunitions to the banned terrorist organization and
other terrorist gang including the gang of Aman Sahu (A-10). The
arms and ammunition so provided by the accused persons to the
armed cadres of CPI (Maoist) and Aman Sahu gang were being
used to execute attacks on security forces and for carrying out
terrorist activities and also to create terror among the local public,
who are involved in government development projects.
20. It is evident from the aforesaid imputation as gathered in
course of investigation as referred hereinabove that the complicity
of the appellant is very much apparent in getting the supply of the
arms and ammunitions from the constable of the CRPF and BSF
for its onward transmission by way of selling it to the banned
terrorist organization and the extremist gang.
21. It further appears that while analyzing CDR and IPDR that the
location of the mobile phones of A-5 and A 9 were found in
Ferozpur (Punjab) which according to the investigating agency
establishes that A-5 had gone to Ferozpur, Punjab to take supply of
the ammunitions. While analyzing the mobile number of A-3, the
appellant herein, and A-5, it establishes that they were in contact
during the relevant period of delivery, i.e., in the month of July,
2021. While analyzing A-2, A-3 and A-4, it also establishes that
they were closely associated.
22. It further appears from paragraph-17.7.03 that the
investigation revealed that A-3 was closely associated with A-2, A-
4 and A-5 and were working as a conduit between A-5 and A-2 in
2025:JHHC:33093-DB
supply chain of arms and ammunitions. It has also been established
that A-3 was in process to obtain/purchasing of INSAS rifle from
North East.
23. This Court, in view of the aforesaid material gathered in course
of investigation against the appellant, is not prima facie satisfied as
the material so gathered is untrue."
36. The learned counsel for the appellant has renewed the prayer for
bail mainly on the ground of long incarceration of the appellant i.e.,
of three years and further in trial out of 152 witnesses only 8 charge
sheeted witnesses have been examined, as such there is remote
chances of case being decided in near future.
37. This Court in order to appreciate the argument advanced on
behalf the learned counsel for the parties, is now proceeding to go
through the ration laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
K.A. Najeeb (supra), and further to examine that whether the said
judgment is applicable in the fact and circumstances of the instant
case or not.
38. In K.A. Najeeb's (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court was confronted
with a circumstance wherein except the respondent-accused, other co-
accused had already undergone trial and were sentenced to
imprisonment of not exceeding eight years therefore the Hon'ble Apex
Court while considering the fact that since the respondent accused
had already served portion of the maximum imprisonment i.e., more
than five years, hence not interfered in the order granting bail.
39. Further, in K.A. Najeeb's case the trial of the respondent-accused
was severed from the other co accused owing to his absconding and
he was traced back in 2015 and was being separately tried thereafter
and the NIA had filed a long list of witnesses that were left to be
examined with reference to the said accused.
40. The Hon'ble Apex Court taking in to consideration the huge
number of witnesses i.e. 276, put a pin-pointed question therein for
reducing the number of witnesses by the investigating agency and
when the same has been shown to be not possible then the Hon'ble
Apex Court, by taking into consideration the period of custody and
there is no likelihood of conclusion of the trial in near future, has not
interfered in the order granting bail to the respondent-accused.
41. But in the instant case, as per the averment out of 152 charge-
sheeted witnesses 8 witnesses have been examined. Further in the
2025:JHHC:33093-DB
instant case direct nexus has been shown by the charge-sheet and
from the relevant part of charge-sheet which was quoted in the order
dated 10.08.2023 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in criminal appeal
(DB) No 584/2023 it is evident that the present appellant had supplied
200 cartridges of Insas rifle in the year 2020 to Sanjay Kumar Singh
to further supply to Maoist cadres. Further he provided assistance to
the armed cadres of CPI Maoist and criminal gang with intention to
execute attacks on security forces to create panic and terror amongst
local contractors and businessmen.
42. Thus, this Court is of the view that in the facts and circumstances
the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex court in Union of India
Vs. K.A. Najeeb (supra) will not be applicable in fact and
circumstances of instant case.
43. Further the learned counsel for the appellant has also put his
reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1945
wherein as per the prosecution case, the appellant's wife was the
owner of a building known as Ahmad Palace and that the appellant
had clandestinely shown that premises on the first floor of the said
building were given on rent to one Athar Parwez - accused no. 1. The
allegation is that, the first-floor premises are being used for
objectional
44. The Hon'ble Apex Court while taking into consideration the fact
that 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 the UAPA is prima facie true, had enlarged the appellant on
bail. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held in paragraph 21 of the said
judgment that 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.
45. This Court is conscious with the fact that personal liberty as
enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution has utmost
importance but that is to be assessed by carving out the balance in
enforcing the law and order.
46. Herein in the case on the basis of investigation it is revealed that
appellant has direct nexus with the Maoist and he had supplied 200
2025:JHHC:33093-DB
cartridges of Insas rifle in the year 2020 to Maoist cadres and it has
come during investigation that he had provided assistance to the
armed cadres of CPI Maoist and criminal gang with intention to
execute attacks on security forces to create panic and terror amongst
local contractors and businessmen. But in the aforesaid case i.e.
Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, (supra) there is only allegation as
per the prosecution against the appellant that appellant's wife was the
owner of a building known as Ahmad Palace and that the appellant
had clandestinely shown that premises on the first floor of the said
building were given on rent to one Athar Parwez - accused no. 1. and
the first-floor premises are being used for objectional activities of an
organization called Popular Front of India (PFI).
47. Prima facie the said allegation was not found correct by the
Hon'ble Apex Court, but in the instant case earlier this Court on
merit, vide order dated 10.08.2023 passed in criminal appeal (DB) No
584/2023 while taking into consideration the various paragraph of the
charge-sheet has prima facie found the allegation against the present
appellant true, as such in the present fact and circumstances of the
case the judgment relied upon by the appellant rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of
India,(supra) is not applicable.
48. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the order
passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Bhikham Ganjhu @
Deepak Ganjhu in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 297 of 2023, and has
submitted that the appellant of the said case remained in custody for
less than two years and even then the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
allowed the appeal directing the appellant to release him on bail, as
such the present appellant may be enlarged on bail by quashing the
impugned order. In the aforesaid context this Court has gone through
the said order and from perusal of the same it is evident that in the
said case none of the witnesses have been examined and the appellant
is languishing in judicial custody since 13.09.2022 but apart this
consideration the Co-ordinate Bench has considered that there is no
recovery from the physical or conscious possession of the appellant
rather the appellant has been implicated in this case on the basis of
the information received from the confidential source but there is no
reference of any name of the villagers as to who has disclosed the
name of the appellant.
2025:JHHC:33093-DB
49. But in the instant case prima facie the direct nexus of the appellant
with the Maoist has been established by the investigating agency
which would be evident from the order dated 10.08.2023 as mentioned
herein above, thus the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for
the appellant will not be applicable in the fact of the instant case.
51. It needs to refer herein in the case of Gurwinder Singh v. State of
Punjab and Another [(2024) SCC On Line SC 109 the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the matter of UAPA, has formulated the concept that bail is
rule and jail is exception. Such observation has been made based
upon the principle that a balance is to be maintained in between the
personal liberty and the societal impact. 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.
52. In the case of Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 6
SCC 591 the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that any form of
deprival of liberty results in breach of Article 21 of the Constitution of
India and must be justified on the ground of being reasonable,
following a just and fair procedure and such deprival must be
proportionate in the facts of a given case,------
53. Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid settled position of law that
any form of deprival of liberty must be justified on the ground of being
reasonable, following a just and fair procedure and such deprival
must be proportionate in the facts of a given case.
Conclusion
54. Considering the aforesaid ratio and its applicability in the instant
case it is evident that Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 10.08.2023
passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 584 of 2023 while rejecting the
prayer for bail of the present appellant has already found that the
alleged allegation against the present appellant has substance which
would be evident from the various paragraph of the said order as
quoted hereinabove.
55. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid discussion this Court is of the view
that since the Co-ordinate Bench has already taken a view while
2025:JHHC:33093-DB
rejecting the prayer for bail on merit and as such taking into
consideration the nature of allegation and nature of gravity and also
the involvement of the present appellant as has been taken note by the
Co-ordinate Bench at various Paragraph thereof, no interference is
required in the impugned order.
56. Therefore, this Court is of the view that no interference is required
in the impugned order as also the trial is in progress.
57. Accordingly, the instant appeal being Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 596 of
2024 stands dismissed."
28. Thus, from the aforesaid, it is evident that this Court while
rejecting the prayer for bail of the present appellant vide order dated
04.12.2024 has already expressed its view on merits of the case by
taking into consideration the settled proposition of law.
29. Now coming to the contention made by the learned counsel for
the appellant, wherefrom it appears that no fresh ground has been raised
except the ground of custody and personal liberty since the appellant is
languishing in judicial custody since 29.12.2021.
30. 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 to be taken care of.
31. It requires to refer herein that this Court while passing the
order in the Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 596 of 2024 has taken note of the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Gurwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another (supra) wherein
the Hon'ble Apex Court while taking into consideration the judgment as
rendered in National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah
Watali (2019)5 SCC 1 has observed that, the proviso to Sub-section (5)
2025:JHHC:33093-DB
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.
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. 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
2025:JHHC:33093-DB
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).
35. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled proposition of law
which has been reiterated herein, this Court is now adverting to the order
dated 28.02.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge NIA Ranchi, in
Misc. Criminal Application No. 316 of 2025 which is under challenge
herein.
36. The learned court in the said order dated has taken into
consideration thatafter investigation NIA submitted charge-sheet against
petitioner Pankaj Kumar Singh A-3 under section 120B of the IPC
(substantively), section 120B IPC r/w section 25(1AA) and 25 (1B)(a),
26, 29 of Arms Act and section 13, 18, 20, 39 of the UA(P) Act 1967. It
has further been taken note that Role of the petitioner Pankaj Kumar
Singh A-3 in the chain of arms supply emerged in para 17.7.03 of the
first charge-sheet. It appears that Pankaj Kumar Singh A-3 was closely
associated with A-2 Rishi Kumar, A-4 Kamendra Singh @ Kamender
Singh and A-5 Arun Kumar Singh @ Fauji and he was working as
conduit between A-5 and A-2 in the supply chain of arms and
ammunitions. It is also disclosed that A-3 was in process to obtain Insas
rifle from northeast and petitioner A-3 hatched criminal conspiracy for
the commission of unlawful activities. He provided assistance to the
armed cadres of CPI Maoist and criminal gang with intention to execute
2025:JHHC:33093-DB
attacks on security forces and criminal gang with intention to execute
attacks to create panic and terror amongst local contractors and
businessmen. During investigation in para 17.5.3 of the charge-sheet IO
collected evidence that A-3 got instruction from accused A-5 for
procuring Insas rifle but the same could not be arranged. Investigation
has also established that A-4 has approachedA-3 for selling of his own
licensed pistol, which is also corroborated by the photograph of the
pistol shared on Whats-app. A-3 has assisted A-2 in purchase of
ammunitions of 5.56 MM caliber. In February 2020 and march 2020, he
received Rs.5000/- for providing 200 rounds each of 5.56 MM
ammunitions and in September 2021 he received Rs.10000/- for
providing 450 rounds of 5.56 MM ammunitions.
37. The learned Special Judge NIA at Ranchi has further taken note
of the fact that there is direct specific and serious allegation against
petitioner that he used to supply arms and ammunition to CPI Maoist
cadre and terrorist gang after receiving money. A prima facie case
appears to be made out against petitioner which comes under the
purview of heinous crime, crime against nation, its unity, integrity,
sovereignty and internal security.
38. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that the learned court
while rejecting the prayer for bail of the present appellant has taken note
culpability of the present appellant along with the settled position of law
as rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, therefore it is considered view
of this Court that there is no perversity in the order dated 28.02.2025
which has been assailed herein.
2025:JHHC:33093-DB
39. Further, herein, the learned counsel for the respondent NIA has
submitted at Bar that the trial in the instant case is in progress and
number of the witnesses have already been pruned and substantial
number of witnesses i.e.19 in number have already been examined.
40. Further , it is relevant to state 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."
41. 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.
42. Thus, taking into consideration that this Court has earlier
expressed its view, on merit, with regard to the prayer for grant of bail of
the present appellant as also there is no change in circumstances as no
fresh ground has been agitated herein as also taking into consideration
2025:JHHC:33093-DB
the submission advanced on behalf of the respondent-NIA that the trial is
in progress and substantial witnesses have been examined, this Court is
of the view that the order impugned dated 28.02.2025 passed in Misc.
Criminal Application No. 316 of 2025 requires no interference.
43. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.
44. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
I agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Jharkhand High Court
Dated: 04 /11/2025
KNR/AFR
Uploaded On- 06.11.2025
