Jharkhand High Court
Saif Ansari @ Saifoli @ Md. Saif Ali @ ... vs Union Of India Through National ... on 21 November, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:34888-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 976 of 2025
------
Saif Ansari @ Saifoli @ Md. Saif Ali @ Bablu, son of Mubarak Ansari,
aged about 30 years, resident of village: Bundu, P.O. & P.S: Keredari,
District Hazaribag (Jharkhand). ... ... Appellant
Versus
Union of India through National Investigation Agency, Ministry of Home
Affairs, Government of India, Ranchi. ... ... Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Md. Razaullah Ansari, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate;
Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate;
Mr. Manmohit Bhalla, Advocate
-------
st
Order No.07/Dated: 21 November, 2025
Per se: Sujit Narayan Prasad, J .
1. The instant appeal preferred under Section 21(4) of the National
Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is directed against the order dated
13.06.2025 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI-
cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi in Misc. Cr. Application No. 706 of
2025, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for bail in connection with
NIA Case No. RC-01/2021/NIA/RNC arising out of Balumath P.S. Case
No. 234 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149,
353, 504, 506, 307, 427, 435, 386, 387, 120B, 121A and 216 of the Indian
Penal Code; Section 25(1)(b), 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act; Section 3 &
4 of Explosive Substance Act; Section 17 of CLA Act, 1908 and; Section
10,13,16(1)(b), 20 and 23 of U.A.P. Act, has been rejected.
Factual Matrix:
2. The prosecution case is based on the self-statement of Sub Inspector Rana
Bhanu Pratap Singh, officer in-charge of Balumath police station that on
18.12.2020 at about 19:00 hours, an information was received in the
2025:JHHC:34888-DB
police station that some unknown persons were burning vehicles and
firing indiscriminately near check post no.1 near Tetariakhad Colliery.
Thereafter, he along with police party proceeded to verify such
information. At 19:30 hours they reached at near Tetariakhad check post
no.1, the miscreants started firing at the police party. The police party
retaliated by firing to protect themselves. Thereafter, the miscreants fled
away taking advantage of night. It is further alleged that the accused
persons had burnt four trucks and one motorcycle and injured four
civilians.
3. The remnants of the burnt trucks, fragments of a cane bomb with wire, a
white colour empty gallon of approx 02 liters, spent cartridges and three
hand written pamphlets containing threats to the transporters and coal
companies, working in the mining area signed by one Pradip Ganjhu (A-
3) were found from the spot. Upon further inquiry it was revealed that
gangster Sujit Sinha (A-1) and Aman Sahu @Aman Sao(A-2) had
conspired with accused Pradeep Ganjhu (A-3), Shahrukh Ansari and his
associates, namely, Santosh Ganjhu, Bihari Ganjhu, Sakendra Ganjhu,
Pramod Ganjhu and others to collect extortion from CCL transporters,
contractors, DO holders and disrupted the legitimate works. Accordingly,
Balumath PS case no 234/2020 dated 19.12.2020 was registered under
sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 504, 506, 307, 427, 435, 386, 387,120B,
121A and 216 of IPC; sections 25(1)(b), 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act,
Section 3 & 4 of the Explosive Substance Act, Section 17 of CLA Act
and under sections 10,13,16(1)(b), 20 & 23 of the UA(P) Act.
4. The ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Government of India, in view of
the gravity of the offence and its cross border and international
ramification issued orders in exercise of the powers vested under Section
2025:JHHC:34888-DB
6(5) read with section 8 of the NIA Act 2008 re-registered case no.
01/2021/NIA-RNC dated 04.03.2021 against the accused persons.
5. The NIA took up the investigation of the aforesaid case. The NIA on
completion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet as well as
supplementary charge-sheets against twenty six accused persons
including the present appellant for the offence under sections 147, 148,
149, 353, 504, 506, 307, 427, 435, 386, 387, 120B of IPC; Section
25(1)(b), 26, 27 and 35 of Arms Act; Sections 3 & 4 of Explosive
Substance Act; Section 17 of CLA Act and Section 16(1)(b), 18, 20 and
23 of UA(P) Act and, accordingly cognizance of the offences was taken
by the court.
6. The name and culpability of the present appellant have come in the
supplementary charge-sheet particularly at Para 17.14 filed by the NIA
which has been annexed in the counter-affidavit dated 25.8.2025.
7. The appellant has been apprehended and taken into custody on
01.09.2021 and, as such, prayer for bail was made but the same had been
rejected against which appeal was preferred being Cr. Appeal (DB) No.
99 of 2023 before this Court which has been dismissed as withdrawn
vide order dated 02.02.2023 and further Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos. 900 of
2023 and Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos. 1132 of 2024 preferred by the appellant
were also dismissed as withdrawn on 6.3.2024 and 20.1.2025
respectively.
Submission of the learned counsel for the Appellant:
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that prayer for regular
bail of the appellant was rejected by the learned Additional Judicial
2025:JHHC:34888-DB
Commissioner-XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi, vide order dated
13.06.2025 in Misc. Cr. Application No. 706 of 2025.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that appellant
is innocent and he has committed no offence as alleged against him and
the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case and he is not named
in the FIR.
10. He has further submitted that charge has already been framed against the
accused and others and trial has commenced and now there is no chance
of absconding or tempering with the evidence.
11. Ground has been taken about the long incarceration of the appellant since
year 2021 as also there is no likelihood of trial to be concluded at an early
date because out of 345 witnesses only 24 witnesses have been examined
and hence by taking into consideration the said fact, submission has been
made that the impugned order may be interfered with.
12. The learned counsel for the appellant has further raised the issue of parity
by stating that another co-accused person, namely, Santosh Kumar @
Banti Yadav has been granted bail vide order dated 09.11.2022 passed in
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 98/2022, Pritam Kumar @ Chiku Yadav @ Chiku
vide order dated 22.12. 2022 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 205/2022
and further Jahiruddin Ansari vide order dated 03.01.2023 passed in Cr.
Appeal (DB) No.51/2022 has also been granted bail; therefore, the prayer
of the present appellant is fit to be allowed.
13. The learned counsel for the appellant based upon the aforesaid grounds
has submitted that the learned Special Judge has not taken the note of the
aforesaid facts, therefore, the present appeal is fit to be allowed.
2025:JHHC:34888-DB
Submission of the learned counsel for the Respondent-NIA:
14. Per contra, Mr. A.K.Das, learned counsel appearing for the NIA, has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant on the strength of
paragraph no. 17.14 of the supplementary charge-sheet which indicates
direct culpability of the appellant in the aforesaid offence.
15. It is stated that the appellant, accompanying with other co-accused
persons, namely, Ajay Turi and Babulal Turi and others have
indiscriminately fired in the colliery and burnt four trucks, one
motorcycle and injured four civilians.
16. It has further been contended that prayer for regular bail of Ajay Turi and
Babulal Turi have been dealt with by this Court which have been rejected
vide orders dated 17.5.2023 and 04.11.2025 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB)
Nos. 133 of 2023 and 818 of 2025 respectively. Further one of the co-
accused, namely, Ajay Turi son of Dinesh Turi has preferred Special
Leave Petition (Crl. Appeal) No.16471/2023) before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, against the order dated 17.05.2023, which was dismissed
vide order dated 22.01.2024. Recently vide order dated 13.10.2025 passed
in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.781 of 2025 the prayer for bail of the
another co-accused namely Ajay Turi son of Govind Turi has also been
rejected by this Court.
17. It has been contended that the allegation against the present appellant is
almost identical to that of aforesaid co-accused person and as such, even
on the issue of parity, it is not a fit case to interfere in the impugned order.
18. It is also been submitted that there are four criminal antecedents against
the appellant under different provision of Indian Penal Code.
2025:JHHC:34888-DB
19. He has further submitted that the evidence collected against the appellant
during the course of investigation was pointed out before the learned
court below and the learned trial court while rejecting the prayer for bail
has taken into consideration all the aspects in entirety and, as such, has
not committed any error.
20. It is stated that there is specific attributability against the appellant, as
would be evident from various paragraphs of the Supplementary charge-
sheet particularly paragraph nos. 17.14.
21. So far as likelihood of delay in the trial due to long list of witnesses, the
submission has been made on behalf of NIA that number of witnesses
which were 345 in numbers has already been pruned to 127, out of which,
24 witnesses have already been examined.
22. The learned counsel appearing for NIA, therefore, submitted that nature
of allegation is serious against the appellant and the prayer for bail of
similarly situated co-accused persons, have already been rejected by this
Court and, as such, the present appellant does not deserve to be enlarged
on bail.
Analysis:
23. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the counter-
affidavit as also the findings recorded by the learned trial court in the
impugned order.
24. The appeal of the appellant wherein prayer for bail was made was earlier
dismissed as withdrawn as would appear from the order dated 02.02.2023
passed by this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 99 of 2023. and further Cr.
Appeal (DB) Nos. 900 of 2023 and Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos. 1132 of 2024
2025:JHHC:34888-DB
preferred by the appellant were also dismissed as withdrawn on 6.3.2024
and 20.1.2025 respectively.
25. The present appeal has been preferred against the rejection order of prayer
for bail although on merits but additional ground has been taken regarding
probable delay causing in examination of 345 witnesses as well as long
incarceration of the appellant i.e about more than 4 years.
26. It has been submitted on behalf of NIA that prayer for bail of the
identically placed co-accused persons, namely, Ajay Turi and Babulal
Turi have already been rejected by this court vide orders dated 17.5.2023
and 04.11.2025 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos. 133 of 2023 and 818 of
2025 respectively, therefore no interference is required with in the
impugned order.
27. Further submission has also been made that long list of witnesses has
already been pruned from 345 to 127 as such the plea of the petitioner
about the probable delay in the trial is not fit to be accepted. Further the
nature of allegation leveled against the appellant is very grave and bail of
identically placed accused persons have already been rejected, therefore,
the present appeal is also fit to be dismissed.
28. In the backdrop of the aforesaid, this Court is now adverting to the factual
aspect of the instant case wherefrom it is evident that on 18.12.2020 a
case being Balumath P.S. Case No. 234/2020 was instituted on
information received at the Balumath Police Station against the unknown
persons leveling therein the charge of burning vehicles and firing
indiscriminately near Check Post No.1 near Tetariakhand Colliery. The
miscreants fired on the police party that had rushed to the spot. Accused
persons had burnt four trucks one motorcycle and also injured 04
2025:JHHC:34888-DB
civilians. From the place of occurrence, remnants of the burnt vehicles,
fragments of a cane bomb with wire, a white colour empty gallon of
approx. 02 liters, spent cartridges and three hand written pamphlets
containing threats to the transporters and coal companies, involved in the
mining area signed by one Pradip Ganjhu were found from the spot. The
Police, on enquiry found that Sujit Sinha and Aman Sahu @Aman Sao
had conspired with accused Pradeep Ganjhu and his associates namely
Santosh Ganjhu, Bihari Ganjhu, Sakendra Ganjhu, Pramod Ganjhu and
others to collect extortion from CCL transporters, contractors, DO holders
and disruption of legitimate works.
29. Based on the aforesaid allegation, Balumath P.S. case no 234/2020 dated
19.12.2020 was instituted for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149,
353, 504, 506, 307, 427, 435, 386, 387 and 120B of IPC section 27 of
Arms Act, Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act, against accused
persons.
30. The Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, directed the NIA to
take up the investigation of the Balumath P.S. case no 234/2020 dated
19.12.2020 which was re-registered as case No.01/2021/NIA-RNC.
Supplementary chargesheet was consequently submitted against the
present appellant and other accused persons.
31. This Court, before proceeding to consider the legality and propriety of the
impugned order, and rival submission of learned counsel for the parties,
deems it fit and proper to first refer the some settled proposition of law
and the relevant provisions of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
(herein referred as Act 1967) which is required to be considered herein.
2025:JHHC:34888-DB
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. Clause (m) of Section 2 of the 1967 Act defines "terrorist organization".
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.
35. 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
2025:JHHC:34888-DB
or continues to be a member of such association shall be liable to be
punished.
36. Further, it would be relevant to mention the offences punishable under
Sections 13 of the 1967 Act, which read thus:
"13. Punishment for unlawful activities.--(1) Whoever-- (a) takes
part in or commits, or (b) 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. (2) Whoever, in any way, assists any unlawful
activity of any association, declared unlawful under section 3, after
the notification by which it has been so declared has become effective
under subsection (3) of that section, shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine,
or with both.
(3) Nothing in this section shall apply to any treaty, agreement or
convention entered into between the Government of India and the
Government of any other country or to any negotiations therefor
carried on by any person authorised in this behalf by the Government
of India.
37. Thus, it is evident that Section13 prescribes Punishment for unlawful
activities. It is further evident that as per section 13 (1) Whoever 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.
38. 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. For ready
2025:JHHC:34888-DB
reference, the Section 43-D(5) of UAP Act is being referred herein which
reads as under:
"43D. Modified application of certain provisions of the Code- "(5)
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no person accused
of an offence punishable under Chapters IV and VI of this Act shall, if
in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless the Public
Prosecutor has been given an opportunity of being heard on the
application for such release: Provided that such accused person shall
not be released on bail or on his own bond if the Court, on a perusal
of the case diary or the report made under section 173 of the Code is
of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the
accusation against such person is prima facie true."
39. The requirement as stipulated under Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act,
1967 in the matter of grant of regular bail fell for consideration before the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Investigation Agency v.
Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali [(2019) 5 SCC 1] wherein 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
2025:JHHC:34888-DB
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 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 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...."
40. It is, thus, evident from the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad
2025:JHHC:34888-DB
Shah Watali (Supra) that it is the bounden duty of the Court to apply its
mind to examine the 17 entire materials on record for the purpose of
satisfying itself, whether a prima facie case is made out against the
accused or not.
41. 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.
42. 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, 25 and 26 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 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
2025:JHHC:34888-DB
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.
26. Be it noted that the special provision, Section 43 D of the 1967
Act, applies right from the stage of registration of FIR for the offences
under Chapters IV and VI of the 1967 Act until the conclusion of the
trial thereof. To wit, soon after the arrest of the accused on the basis
of the FIR registered against him, but before filing of the charge-sheet
by the investigating agency; after filing of the first charge-sheet and
before the filing of the supplementary or final chargesheet consequent
to further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC, until framing of
the charges or after framing of the charges by the Court and
recording of evidence of key witnesses, etc. However, once charges
are framed, it would be safe to assume that a very strong suspicion
was founded upon the materials before the Court, which prompted the
Court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual
ingredients constituting the offence alleged against the accused, to
justify the framing of charge. In that situation, the accused may have
to undertake an arduous task to satisfy the Court that despite the
framing of charge, the materials presented along with the charge-
sheet (report under Section 173 CrPC), do not make out reasonable
grounds for believing that the accusation against him is prima facie
true. Similar opinion is required to be formed by the Court whilst
considering the prayer for bail, made after filing of the first report
made under Section 173 of the Code, as in the present case."
43. It is, thus, evident that the exercise to be undertaken by the court at this
stage of granting bail by giving reasons for grant or non-grant of bail that
2025:JHHC:34888-DB
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.
44. It needs to refer herein that 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) has observed that, the proviso to Sub-
section (5) of Section 43D puts a complete embargo on the powers of the
Special Court to release an accused on bail and lays down that if the
Court, 'on perusal of the case diary or the report made under Section 173
of the Code of Criminal Procedure', is of the opinion that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation, against such person,
as regards commission of offence or offences under Chapter IV and/or
Chapter VI of the UAP Act is prima facie true, such accused person shall
not be released on bail or on his own bond.
45. 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.
2025:JHHC:34888-DB
46. 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.
47. In the aforesaid background the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the test
for rejection of bail is quite plain and Bail must be rejected as a 'rule', if
after hearing the public prosecutor and after perusing the final report or
Case Diary, the Court arrives at a conclusion that there are reasonable
grounds for believing that the accusations are prima facie true. It has
further been observed that it is only if the test for rejection of bail is not
satisfied - that the Courts would proceed to decide the bail application in
accordance with the 'tripod test' (flight risk, influencing witnesses,
tampering with evidence).
48. 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
2025:JHHC:34888-DB
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 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 scrutinising 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--"
49. 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:34888-DB
50. 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 summarised 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 Section 173 CrPC; report
submitted under
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')?"
51. 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 by
taking into consideration the material collected in course of investigation.
Issue of Culpability of the appellant in the alleged Crime
52. From perusal of record, it is evident that the extract of the 1st
supplementary charge-sheet dated 26.02.2022 which is part of the counter
affidavit as appended as Annexure-A, it appears from paragraph 17.3 that
Balumath Police arrested accused Pradip Ganjhu (A-3), Babulal Turi (A-
8), Ajay Turi (A-9), Santosh Kumar @ Banti Yadav (A-10), Prabhat
Kumar Yadav-@ Dimple Yadav (A-11), Pritam Kumar @ Chiku (A-12)
and Santosh Kumar Yadav (A-13) on 07.02.2021. During examination,
Pradip Ganjhu (A-3), Babulal Turi (A-8) and Ajay Turi (A-9) revealed the
name of the accused persons i.e. Sujit Sinha (A-1), Aman Sahu (A-2),
Santosh Ganjhu (A-4), Bihari Ganjhu (A-5), Sakerder Ganjhu (A-6),
2025:JHHC:34888-DB
Pramod Ganjhu (A-7), Shahrukh Ansari @Tiwari Khan (A-21), Saif
Ansari @ Bablu (A-20), Ajay Turi S/o Govind Turi (A-22), Pankaj
Karmali @ Khetiya (A-23), Jasim Ansari (A-14), Wasim Ansari (A-15),
Majibul Ansari (A-16), Jahiruddin Ansari (A-17), etc. who were the part
of criminal conspiracy, took part in carrying out firing and burning
incident at Tetariyakhad Colliery and threw threatening pamphlets for
terrorizing the Coal Businessmen, DO Holders, Transporters, etc. to
disrupt the legitimate work, facilitated safe custody of arms and
ammunition and provided harbor.
53. It has further been revealed as has been referred under paragraph 17.7 of
chargesheet that accused Sujit Sinha and Aman Sahu being incarcerated
in District Jail Jamshedpur and BMC Jail Ranchi respectively in
association with members of banned associations had hatched a larger
conspiracy to terrorize the Coal Businessmen, Transporters, DO Holders,
Lifters and others to collect extortion by committing terrorist--act. In this
process, in pursuance to conspiracy this terror gang consisting of Pradip
Ganjhu @Prem@ Mandal (A-3), Santosh Ganjhu (A-4), Bihari Ganjhu
(A-5), Sakendru Ganjhu (A-6), Pramod Ganjhu (A-7), Babulal Turi (A-8),
Saif Ansari(A-20)(present appellant), Shahrukh Ansari (A-21), Ajay
Turi (A-22) and Pankaj Karmali (A-23) carried out a terror incident at
Tetriyakhand Colliery, PS-Bälurmath, District Latehar on 18.12.2020
resulting in injuries to 04 civilians, burning of-04 trucks and 01
motorcycle. The gang members had also dropped threatening pamphlets,
asking the Coal Businessmen, Transporters, D.O. Holders, Lifters and
others to pay the said gang extortion money or else to face dire
consequences.
2025:JHHC:34888-DB
54. The investigation further revealed, as has been referred at paragraph
17.11, wherein it is mentioned that after the seizure of AK-47 Rifle etc.
and arrest of two gang members by Balumath-Police in FIR no. 226/2020
dated 03.12.2020, Sujit Sinha (A-1) and Aman Sahu (A-2) in
collaboration with Shahrukh Ansari (A-21), Pradip Ganjhu (A-3) and
others planned to carry out terror incident at Tetariyakhad Colliery in
which they decided to attack on Truck-owners,-DO-Holders, Transporters
and lifters to spread the fear in their minds so that they could be extorted.
To execute the plan, Pradip Gánjhu (A-3), Santosh Ganjhu (A-4) Bihari
Garijhu (A-5), Sakendra Ganjhu (A-6), Pramod Ganjhu (A-7), Babulal
Turi (A-8) and his brother Ajay Turi (A-9) and Shahrukh Ansari (A-21)
assembled at village-Dhoti in area of PS Chandwa, District Latehar,
Jharkhand. Saif Ansari(A-20) (present appellant), Ajay Turi (A-22) and
Pankaj Karmali @ Khetia (A-23) also joined them at village Dhoti from
their village Bundu, PS Keredari, District Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. Here,
Pradip Ganjhu (A-3), Shahrukh Ansari (A-21) and Ajay Turi (A-9) wrote
threatening pamphlets.
55. It is evident from paragraph 17.14 it is evident that on 18.12.2020 at about
06:30 PM, Ajay Turi (A-22) and Pankaj Karmall (2) Khetiya (A-23)
carried out recce at Tetariyakhad collicry. At about 07:00 PM, Pradip
Ganjhu (A 3), Santosh Ganjhu (A-4), Bihari Ganjhu (A5), Säkendra
Ganjhu (A-6), Pramod Ganjhu (A-7), Babulal Turi (A-8), Saif Ansari(A-
20)(present appellant) Shahrukh Ansari (A-21), Ajay-Turi (A-22) and
Pankaj Karmali @ Khetia (A-23) reached Tetariyakhad colliery and
carried out indiscriminate firing near Check Post No. 1 in which 04
civilians were injured. They also burnt 04 trucks & 01 motorcycle and
2025:JHHC:34888-DB
exploded Can Bombs beneath a truck and Weigh Bridge No. 1. During
this terror incident, they dropped threatening pamphlets on behalf of
Pradip Ganjhu. (A-3) for collection of extortion.
56. It is further evident from paragraph 17.15 that after the terror incident at
Tetariyakhad colliery on 18.12.2020, the said gang members including
Saif Ansari (A-20) (the present appellant) Shahrukh Ansari (A-21),
Ajay Turi (A-22) returned to village Dhoti in early morning of
19.12.2020. Thereafter, except Pradip Ganjhu (A-3, Babulal Turi (A-8)
and Shahrukh Ansari (A-21, all above executors of the said terror incident
dispersed from village Dhoti. Saif Ansari (A-20), Ajay Turi (A 22) and
Pankaj Karmali @ Khetia (A-23) also returned to their village Bundu, PS
Keredari, District Jharkhand after handing over the used firearms to
accused Shahrukh Ansari (A-21) and Pradip Ganjhu (A-3).
57. It is evident from paragraph 17.22 that during examination Wasim Ansari
(A-15) stated that Aman Sahu (A 2) was using a mobile phone in Birsa
Munda Central Jail, Hotwar Ranchi. On this information, Jail
Superintendent, transferred him to the Special Cell of Birsa Munda
Central Jail, Hotwar Ranchi. For this reason, Aman Sahu (A-2) was
planning to attack Jail Superintendent, BMC, Kara, Ranchi. Aman Sahu
(A-2) through Shahrukh Ansari (A-21) arranged one Carbine gun and
pistol and same were kept with Jasim Ansari (A-14) and Wasim Ansari
(A-15) at village Kanbhita. On the direction of Aman Sahu, Saif Ansari
(A-20) (present appellant) received this 01 Carbine gun, 01 pistol with
ammunition from Wasim Ansari (A-15) in his village Kanbhita for
completing the said task along with Ajay Turi (A-22) and Pankaj Karmali
(A-23).
2025:JHHC:34888-DB
58. On the disclosure of Wasim Ansari (A-15), the said carbine gun, pistol
and ammunition were seized by Barkagaon police from the possession of
Saif Ansari (A-20) (present appellant) and a case no. 44/2021 dated
09.02.2021 was registered in PS-Bärkagaon, Dist Hazaribagh against
accused Saif Ansari (A-20), Ajay Turi (A-22) and Pankaj Karmali (A-23).
59. It is evident from the paragraph 17.29 of the charge sheet that the
Protected Witnesses A', 'B', 'D' & 'E' were present at Tetariyakhad colliery
at the time of firing by Saif Ansari (A-20), Shahrukh Ansari(A-21), Ajay
Turi (A-22) and other co-accused on-18-12-2020. During Photo
Identification proceedings in presence of independent witnesses, the said
protected witnesses identified the photographs of Saif Ansari (A-20),
Shahrukh Ansari(A-21), Ajay Turi (A-22)) alongwith Pradip Ganjhu (A-
3), Santosh Ganjhu (A-4), Bihari Ganjhu (A-5) Sakendra Ganjhu (A-6),
Pramod Ganjhu (A-7), Babulal Turi (A-8) and Pankaj Karmali (A-23) and
stated that these persons had carried out indiscriminate firing near Check
Post No.01 at Tetariyakhad colliery in which 04 civilians were injured.
They burnt 04 trucks, one motorcycle and dropped threatening pamphlets
in the name of Pradip Ganjhu (A-3) to collect extortion on behalf of Sujit
Sinha (A-1). The protected witnesses also identified the photograph of
Pradip Ganjhu (A-3) and his residence at village-Pindarkom, PS-
Balumath, District Latehar, Jharkhand.
60. It is evident from paragraph 17.33 that the criminal antecedents of
accused Saif Ansari, (A-20), Shahrukh Ansari (A-21), and Ajay Tari (A-
22) were received from the districts Hazaribagh and Ranchi respectively.
The received criminal antecedents prove the. involvement of said accused
persons in the criminal activities since long. They were associated with
2025:JHHC:34888-DB
the PLFI, a banned association under the Criminal Law Amendment Act.
1908. Later, they were associated with "Sujit Sinha and Aman Sahu gang"
and involved in the criminal activities of the gang. The registration of
criminal case in PS Gola, District Ramgarh against accused Shahrukh
Ansari (A-21), Ajay Turi (A-22) and absconding accused Pankaj Karmali
(A-23) for kidnaping of one Jaleshwar Mahto with other PLFI cadres
proves their affiliation with the PLFI.
61. Paragraph 17.3, 17.7, 17.11, 17.14, 17.15, 17.22, 17.29 and 17.33 are of
the supplementary Charge-sheet are quoted hereunder as :-
"17.3 Investigation brought out that Balumath Police arrested
accused Pradip Ganjhu (A-3), Babulal Turi (A-8), Ajay Turi (A-9),
Santosh Kumar @ Banti Yadav (A-10), Prabhat Kumar Yadav-@
Dimple Yadav (A-11), Pritam Kumar @ Chiku (A-12) and Santosh
Kumar. Yadav (A-13) on 07.02.2021. During examination, Pradip
Ganjhu (A-3), Babulal Turi (A-8) and Ajay Turi (A-9) revealed the
name of the accused persons i.e. Sujit Sinha (A-1), Aman Sahu (A 2),
Santosh Ganjhu (A-4), Bihari Ganjhu (A-5), Sakerder Ganjhu (A-6),
Pramod Ganjhu (A-7), Shahrukh Ansari @Tiwari Khan (A-21), Saif
Ansari @ Bablu (A-20), Ajay Turi S/o Govind Turi (A-22), Pankaj
Karmali@ Khetiya (A-23), Jasim Ansari (A-14), Wasim Ansari (A-15),
Majibul Ansari (A-16), Jahiruddin Ansari (A-17), etc. who were the
part of criminal conspiracy, took part in carrying out firing and
burning incident at Tetariyakhad Colliery and threw threatening
pamphlets for terrorizing the Coal Businessmen, DO Holders,
Transporters, etc. to disrupt the legitimate work, facilitated safe
custody of arms and ammunition and provided harbor.
17.7. Investigation brought out that accused Sujit Sinha and Aman
Sahu being incarcerated in District Jail Jamshedpur and BMC Jail
Ranchi respectively in association with members of banned
associations had hatched a larger conspiracy to terrorize the Coal
Businessmen, Transporters, DO Holders, Lifters and others to collect
extortion by committing terrorist--act. In this process, in pursuance to
conspiracy this terror gang consisting of Pradip Ganjhu @Prem@
Mandal (A-3), Santosh Ganjhu (A-4), Bihari Ganjhu (A-5), Sakendru
Ganjhu (A-6), Pramod Ganjhu (A-7), Babulal Turi (A-8), Saif Ansari
2025:JHHC:34888-DB
(A-20), Shahrukh Ansari (A-21), Ajay Turi (A-22) and Pankaj Karmali
(A-23) carried out a terror incident at Tetriyakhand Colliery, PS-
Bälurmath, District Latehar on 18.12.2020 resulting in injuries to 04
civilians, burning of-04 trucks and 01 motorcycle. The gang members
had also dropped threatening pamphlets, asking the Coal
Businessmen, Transporters, D.O. Holders, Lifters and others to pay
the said gang extortion money or else to face dire consequences.
17.11 Investigation has brought out that after the seizure of AK-47
Rifle etc. and arrest of two gang members by Balumath-Police in FIR
no. 226/2020 dated 03.12.2020, Sujit Sinha (A-1) and Aman Sahu (A-
2) in collaboration with Shahrukh Ansari (A-21), Pradip Ganjhu (A-3)
and others planned to carry out terror incident at Tetariyakhad
Colliery in which they decided to attack on Truck-owners,-DO
Holders, Transporters and lifters to spread the fear in their minds so
that they could be extorted. To execute the plan, Pradip Gánjhu (A-3),
Santosh Ganjhu (A-4) Bihari Garijhu (A-5), Sakendra Ganjhu (A-6),
Pramod Ganjhu (A-7), Babulal Turi (A-8) and his brother Ajay Turi
(A-9) and Shahrukh Ansari (A-21) assembled at village-Dhoti in area
of PS Chandwa, District Latehar, Jharkhand. Saif Ansari (A 20), Ajay
Turi (A-22) and Pankaj Karmali @ Khetia (A-23) also joined them at
village Dhoti from their village Bundu, PS Keredari, District
Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. Here, Pradip Ganjhu (A-3), Shahrukh Ansari
(A-21) and Ajay Turi (A-9) wrote threatening pamphlets.
17.14 Investigation brought out that on 18.12.2020 at about 06:30
PM, Ajay Turi (A-22) and Pankaj Karmall (2) Khetiya (A-23) carried
out recce at Tetariyakhad collicry. At about 07:00 PM, Pradip Ganjhu
(A-3), Santosh Ganjhu (A 4), Bihari Ganjhu (A5), Säkendra Ganjhu
(A-6), Pramod Ganjhu (A-7), Babulal Turi (A-8), Saif Ansari(A-20),
Shahrukh Ansari (A-21), Ajay-Turi (A-22) and Pankaj Karmali @
Khetia (A-23) reached Tetariyakhad colliery and carried out
indiscriminate firing near Check Post No. 1 in which 04 civilians were
injured. They also burnt 04 trucks & 01 motorcycle and exploded Can
Bombs beneath a truck and Weigh Bridge No. 1. During this terror
incident, they dropped threatening pamphlets on behalf of Pradip
Ganjhu. (A-3) for collection of extortion.
17.15 Investigation has brought out that after the terror incident at
Tetariyakhad colliery on 18.12.2020, the said gang members
including Saif Ansari (A-20), Shahrukh Ansari (A-21), Ajay Turi (A-
22) returned to village Dhoti in early morning of 19.12.2020.
Thereafter, except Pradip Ganjhu (A-3, Babulal Turi (A-8) and
2025:JHHC:34888-DB
Shahrukh Ansari (A 21, all above executors of the said terror incident
dispersed from village Dhoti. Saif Ansari (A-20), Ajay Turi (A-22) and
Pankaj Karmali @ Khetia (A-23) also returned to their village Bundu,
PS Keredari, District Jharkhand after handing over the used firearms
to accused Shahrukh Ansari (A-21) and Pradip Ganjhu (A-3).
17.22 During examination Wasim Ansari (A-15) stated that Aman
Sahu (A-2) was using a mobile phone in Birsa Munda Central Jail,
Hotwar Ranchi. On this information, Jail Superintendent, transferred
him to the Special Cell of Birsa Munda Central Jail, Hotwar Ranchi.
For this reason, Aman Sahu (A-2) was planning to attack Jail
Superintendent, BMC, Kara, Ranchi. Aman Sahu (A-2) through
Shahrukh Ansari (A-21) arranged one Carbine gun and pistol and
same were kept with Jasim Ansari (A-14) and Wasim Ansari (A-15) at
village Kanbhita. On the direction of Aman Sahu, Saif Ansari (A-20)
received this 01 Carbine gun, 01 pistol with ammunition from Wasim
Ansari (A-15) in his village Kanbhita for completing the said task
along with Ajay Turi (A-22) and Pankaj Karmali (A-23). On the
disclosure of Wasim Ansari (A-15), the said carbine gun, pistol and
ammunition were seized by Barkagaon police from the possession of
Saif Ansari (A-20) and a case no. 44/2021 dated 09.02.2021 was
registered in PS-Bärkagaon, Dist Hazaribagh against accused Saif
Ansari (A-20), Ajay Turi (A 22) and Pankaj Karmali (A-23).
17.29 Investigation brought out that Protected Witnesses A', 'B', 'D' &
'E' were present at Tetariyakhad colliery at the time of firing by Saif
Ansari (A-20), Shahrukh Ansari(A-21), Ajay Turi (A-22) and other co-
accused on-18-12-2020. During Photo Identification proceedings in
presence of independent witnesses, the said protected witnesses
identified the photographs of Saif Ansari (A-20), Shahrukh Ansari(A-
21), Ajay Turi (A-22)) alongwith Pradip Ganjhu (A-3), Santosh
Ganjhu (A-4), Bihari Ganjhu (A-5) Sakendra Ganjhu (A-6), Pramod
Ganjhu (A-7), Babulal Turi (A-8) and Pankaj Karmali (A-23) and
stated that these persons had carried out indiscriminate firing near
Check Post No.01 at Tetariyakhad colliery in which 04 civilians were
injured. They burnt 04 trucks, one motorcycle and dropped
threatening pamphlets in the name of Pradip Ganjhu (A-3) to collect
extortion on behalf of Sujit Sinha (A-1). The protected witnesses also
identified the photograph of Pradip Ganjhu (A-3) and his residence at
village-Pindarkom, PS Balumath, District-Latehar, Jharkhand.
17.33 During the, investigation, the criminal antecedents of accused
Saif Ansari, (A-20), Shahrukh Ansari (A-21), and Ajay Tari (A-22)
2025:JHHC:34888-DB
were received from the districts Hazaribagh and Ranchi respectively.
The received criminal antecedents prove the. involvement of said
accused persons in the criminal activities since long. They were
associated with the PLFI, a banned association under the Criminal
Law Amendment Act. 1908. Later, they were associated with "Sujit
Sinha and Aman Sahu gang" and involved in the criminal activities of
the gang. The registration of criminal case in PS Gola, District
Ramgarh against accused Shahrukh Ansari (A-21), Ajay Turi (A-22)
and absconding accused Pankaj Karmali (A-23) for kidnaping of one
Jaleshwar Mahto with other PLFI cadres proves their affiliation with
the PLFI."
62. It is thus evident from the imputation against the appellant, as referred in
the paragraphs as quoted herein above, that he was associated with "Sujit
Sinha and Aman Sahu gang" and involved in the criminal activities of the
gang.
63. The investigation further revealed, that after collecting the AK 47 and
other weapons, Pradip Ganjhu (A-3) with his group carried out firing in
the siding of Purnadih and dropped threatening pamphlets and the group
was going to carry out terrorist attack at Bukru siding, when they were
intercepted by the Balumath Police. In this incident one AK-47 Rifle,
other Arms and Ammunition and Rs. 107,000/- of extortion money were
seized by Balumath Police and his Associates Manoj Turi and Jitender
Tana Bhagat were arrested.
64. After the said incident of seizure of AK-47 Rifle etc and arrest of two
Gang members by Balumath Police, Sujit Sinha (A-1) and Aman Sahu
(A-2) in collaborations with Shahrukh, Pradip Ganjhu and others planned
to carry out terror incident at Tetariyakhad Colliery. They were directed
to attack on Truck owners, D.O., Holders, transporters and lifters to
spread the fear in their minds so that they could be extorted and on the
2025:JHHC:34888-DB
direction of Pradip Ganjhu (A-3) and Babulal Turi (A-8), Ajay Turi (A-9)
wrote threatening pamphlets.
65. Further it has come in investigation that on 18.12.2020 at about 06:30
PM, Ajay Turi (A-22) and Pankaj Karmali Khetiya (A-23) carried out
recce at Tetariyakhad colliery. At about 07:00 PM, Pradip Ganjha (A-3),
Santosh Ganjhu (A-4), Bihari Ganjhu (A-5), Sakendra Ganjira (A-6),
Pramod Ganjhu (A-7), Babulal Turi (A-8), Saif Ansari(A-20) present
appellant, Shahrukh Ansuri (A-21), Ajay Tari (A-22) and Pankaj
Karmali @ Khetia (A-23) reached Tetariyakhad colliery and carried out
indiscriminate firing near Check Post No, I in which no. of civilhans
were injured. They also burnt 04 trucks & 01 motorcycle and exploded
Can pos beneath a truck Ed Weigh Bridge No. 1. During this terror
incident, they dropped threatening pamphlets or behalf of Pradip Ganjhu
(A-3) for collection of extortion.
66. Thus, from aforesaid evidences prima-facie the involvement of the
present appellant in the alleged commission of crime cannot be denied.
The involvement of the appellant was direct in the alleged commission of
crime which was fully substantiated by the evidences available on record.
67. The argument has emphatically been made on behalf of appellant that
there is no specific attributability of the appellant in commission of
offence said to be committed under the Scheduled offence and the
appellant has been implicated in the present case merely on the basis of
the suspicion.
68. In the aforesaid context it requires to revisit the Statutory provision
especially Section 43D (5) of Act 1967, which requires consideration
2025:JHHC:34888-DB
before looking to the legality and propriety of the order refusing to grant
of regular bail.
69. Section 43D (5) mandates that the person shall not be released on bail if
the court is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing
that the accusations made are prima facie true apart from the other
offences the appellant is accused of committing offences under Sections
17, 18 and 21 of the UA(P) Act, 1967.
70. The requirement as stipulated under Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act,
1967 in the matter of grant of regular bail that while considering the
ground of delay under Section 43D(5) it is the bounden duty of the Court
to apply its mind to examine the entire materials on record for the purpose
of satisfying itself, whether a prima facie case is made out against the
accused or not.
71. This Court is of the view by going through imputation as has found in
course of investigation which same has been quoted and referred
hereinabove that the complicity of the appellant in the alleged crime
cannot be denied. Thus, this Court, from the aforesaid allegation cannot
come to the conclusion that whatever has come in course of investigation
against the appellant is said to be prima facie untrue rather this Court is of
the view that the allegations are sufficient to come to the conclusion that
the allegation is prima facie true.
Delay in trial and long incarceration of the appellant
72. Further, there is no quarrel about the settled position of law that Article 21
of the Constitution of India provides for protecting the fundamental right
of liberty but that is to be assessed by carving out the balance in enforcing
the law and order and merely because the custody is there, the availability
2025:JHHC:34888-DB
of other cogent evidence which prima facie indicates the involvement of
accused/appellant in the alleged commission of crime cannot be ignored.
73. So far, the probable delay in trial is concerned 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, (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 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."
74. 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.
75. However, the learned Counsel for NIA has specifically submitted at Bar
that number of witnesses which were 345 in numbers has already been
pruned to 127, out of which, 24 witnesses have already been examined.
76. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid discussion and taking into
consideration the grave nature of the allegations and the strict statutory
framework governing bail under the section 43 (D) (5) of UAP Act 1967,
2025:JHHC:34888-DB
it is considered view of this Court that the said grounds i.e. delay in trial
or long incarceration is not fit ground to claim the benefit of bail on merit.
77. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid the contention of the learned counsel
for the appellant is not fit to be accepted.
Issue of Parity
78. Herein the issue of parity has been raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant. This Court is conscious with the settled position of law that the
issue of parity, is to be taken into consideration but the same is to be taken
into consideration by applying the factual aspect along with the
surrounding facts, as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, 2023
SCC OnLine SC 1486 wherein it has held as under:
"18. The submission of learned Counsel Mr. Luthra to grant bail to
the appellant on the ground that the other co accused who were
similarly situated as the appellant, have been granted bail, also
cannot be accepted. It may be noted that parity is not the law. While
applying the principle of parity, the Court is required to focus upon
the role attached to the accused whose application is under
consideration."
79. 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 simply saying that another
accused has been granted bail is not sufficient to determine whether a case
for grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established. Reference in
this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana,
(2021) 6 SCC 230 wherein it has been held as under:
2025:JHHC:34888-DB
"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 the event of
conviction. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of
U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527], 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
(A16) 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 42 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
2025:JHHC:34888-DB
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."
80. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled legal position this Court has gone
through the order dated 17.5.2023 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 133 of
2023. The relevant paragraph is being quoted herein under:
"15. This Court, after taking into consideration the aforesaid allegation
and considering the fact that it has come in course of investigation that the
appellant is the active member of the Sujit Sinha and Aman Sahu gang and
had gone to the shop for purchase of electric wire, battery of motorcycle
and petrol with gallons which has been corroborated by the shopkeepers.
Further, he has been apprehended from the forest along with other
member of the gang as has come in the supplementary chargesheet.
16. This Court, on the basis of the material available in the
chargesheet/supplementary chargesheet, is of the opinion that the
accusation against the appellant is prima facie true, as compared to the
opinion of accused not guilty of such offence which is being claimed on the
basis of no conclusive report of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory
for ascertaining the hand script over the pamphlets.
17. This Court, after having discussed the factual aspect as above and
coming back to the order impugned wherefrom it is evident that the
learned trial court has considered the material available against the
appellant in the chargesheet as also by taking into consideration the
statement of PW-25 and PW-26 (the protected witnesses A and B), list of
documents Annexure-B, list of witnesses Annexure-C and list of articles
Annexure-D as also the fact that other prosecution witnesses have
supported the case of the prosecution against the appellant, as also by
taking into consideration the provision as contained under Section 43D(5)
of the Act, 1967, has come to the conclusion that the accusation against
the appellant is prima facie true in comparison to the opinion of the
accused not guilty and in that view of the matter, the learned trial court
has not been satisfied to extend the benefit of regular bail.
We are also in agreement with the aforesaid finding based upon the
material of accusation of the appellant and not prima facie satisfied by
taking into consideration the entire material on record and, hence, we are
not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
18. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed."
2025:JHHC:34888-DB
81. Likewise, the case of co-accused Babulal Turi has also been taken into
consideration in the order dated 04.11.2025 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB)
Nos. 818 of 2025. The relevant paragraph is being quoted herein under:
"46. Before entering into the merit of the case, it would be apt to refer
herein that the prayer for bail was made before the learned trial Court
by filing Misc. Cr. Application No.188 of 2023 but the same had been
rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 25.02.2023
against which appeal was preferred being Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 549 of
2023 which has also been dismissed by this Court vide order dated
08.09.2023.
47. Thereafter, the appellant has again preferred an application for
regular bail before the learned trial Court by filing Misc. Cr.
Application No.2081 of 2024 which was dismissed vide order dated
13.08.2024.
48. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been preferred by the
appellant for grant of regular bail.
49. Thus, from the aforesaid, it is evident that this Court which
rejecting the prayer for bail of the present appellant vide order dated
08.09.2023 has already expressed its view on merit of the case by
taking into consideration the settled proposition of law. For ready
reference, the relevant paragraph(s) of the said order is being
referred as under:
"29. It is evident from the counter affidavit based upon the material
collected in course of investigation as in the supplementary
chargesheet that in course of investigation it has come on record that
after the Tetariyakhad Colliery incident on 19.12.2020, a team of PS-
Balumath searched the scene of crime at Tetariyakhad Colliery and
recovered 04 burnt trucks bearing registration No. JH-19C-8853, JH
19B-5941, JH-19B-6142 and truck No-JH 19B-4021, one Yamaha
Motorcycle No-JH01-DH4269, one blasted Cane Bomb with wire, one
white empty gallon, 07 empty fire cases out of which, 05 cases were
marked as 7.65 KF and 02 empty cases were marked as BMM KF and
three hand written pamphlets having contents "-----"
30. It has come during investigation that Balumath police arrested
accused Pradip Ganjhu (A-3), Babulal Turi (A-8) [appellant] herein],
Ajay Turi (A-9), Santosh Kumar @ Banti Yadav (A-10), Prabhat
Kumar Yadav @ Dimple Yadav (A-11), Pritam Kumar @ Chiku, S/o
2025:JHHC:34888-DB
Sita Ram Yadav (A-12), and Santosh Kumar Yadav (A13) on
07.02.2021. During examination the said accused persons revealed
their part in the criminal conspiracy of Tetariyakhad incident.
Accused Pradip Ganjhu (A-3) and Babulal Turi (A-8) disclosed the
names of the accused persons i.e., Sujit Sinha (A-1), Amand Sahu (A-
2), Santosh Ganjhu (A-4), Bihari Ganjhu (A-5), Sakender Ganjhu (A-
6), Pramod Ganjhu (A 7), Shahrukh @ Tiwari Khan, Saif Ansari @
Bablu, Jasim Ansari (A-14), Wasim Ansari (A-15), Majibul Ansari (A-
16), Jahiruddin Ansari (A-17), Sjay Turi, S/o Govind Turi, Pankaj
Karmali @ Khetiya, Arjun Pahariya and Shani Ganjhu etc., who were
part of the criminal conspiracy, took part in carrying out firing and
burning incident at Tetariyakhand Colliery, threw threatening
pamphlets terrorizing the Coal Businessmen, for DO Holders,
Transporters, etc. and to disrupt the legitimate work, facilitated
ammunition and safe provided custody harbour of arms & to involve
in Tetariyakhand Colliery incident.
31. During police remand of accused Pradip Ganjhu @ Prem @
Mandalji (A-3), Babulal Turi (A-8), Santosh Yadav@ Banti Yadav (A-
10), Prabhat Kumar @ Dimple Yadav (A-11) and Pritam Kumar @
Chiku Yadav (A-12), accused persons were thoroughly examined.
They disclosed their past conduct as well as their part in the criminal
conspiracy related to Tetariyakhad incident dated 18.12.2020 and
they even pointed out places related to the said incident.
32. While in police remand, accused Ajay Turi (A- 9) disclosed that,
he, on the directions of Pradip Ganjhu (A-3) and his brother Babulal
Turi (A-8), wrote threatening pamphlets, which were dropped during
terrorist attack at Tetariyakhand on 18.12.2020.
33. It has also come that after the seizure of AK-47 Rifle etc. and
arrest of 02 Gang members by Balumath Police, accused Sujit Sinha
(A-1) and Aman Sahu (A-2), in collaboration with Pradip Ganjhu and
others, planned to carry out terror incident at Tetariyakhand Colliery.
They were directed to attack on Truck owners, D.O. Holders,
Transporters and lifters to spread the fear in their minds so that they
could be extorted. To execute the plan, Pradip Ganjhu (A-3) Ganjhu
(A-4) Bihari Ganjhu (A-5), Santosh Sakendra Ganjhu (A-6), Pramod
Ganjhu (A-7), Babulal Turi (A-8) and his brother Ajay Turi (A-9),
Shahrukh Ansari (A 21) and others met at Village-Dhoti. On the
directions of Pradip Ganjhu (A-3) and Babulal Turi (A-8), accused
Ajay Turi (A-9) wrote threatening pamphlets. On 17.12.2020, they
2025:JHHC:34888-DB
reached near Tetariyakhand Colliery and remained in Pindarkom
forest. On the directions of Babulal Turi, i.e. the present appellant, his
brother Ajay Turi (A-9), along with Bihari Ganjhu (A- 5), went to
Mccluskigunj, District Ranchi and purchased electric wire and a
battery of motorcycle. They also purchased Petrol with Gallons from
Bhangia, PS Balumath, District- Latehar, Jharkhand Tetariyakhand
for using in the attack.
34. Investigation has further brought out that, on 17.12.2020, accused
Pradip Ganjhu (A-3), Babulal Turi (A 8), Ajay Turi (A-9), Santosh
Ganjhu (A-4), Bihari Ganjhu (A 5) Sakendra Ganjhu (A-6), Pramod
Ganjhu (A-7), Shahrukh Ansari @ Tiwari Khan and others took
dinner at the house of one Laso Yadav s/o Bhagwat Yadav resident of
Pindarkom, PS-Balumath, District-Latehar. While having the dinner,
they were discussing a probable terrorist attack at Tetariyakhand.
35. That, it has been revealed during the course of investigation that,
on 18.12.2020, at about 06:30 PM, accused Pankaj Karmali @
Khetiya and Ajay Turi R/o Bundu carried out reccee at Tetariyakhad.
At about 07:00 PM, Pradip Ganjhu (A-3), Santosh Ganjhu (A-4)
Bihari Ganjhu (A-5), Sakendra Ganjhu (A-6), Pramod Ganjhu (A 7),
Babulal Turi (A-8), Shahrukh Ansari (A21), Saif Ansari @Bablu, Ajay
Turi S/o Goving Turi, Pankaj Karmali@ Khetiya and Arjun Pahariya
reached Tetariyakhand and carried out indiscriminate firing, in which
04 civilians were injured. They also burned down 04 trucks, 01
motorcycle and they blasted cane bombs beneath a Weigh Bridge and
beneath a truck. During the incident, they also dropped threatening
pamphlets in the name of Sujit Sinha (A-1) and Pradip Ganjhu (A-3).
On getting information, Balumath Police also reached at
Tetariyakhand Colliery and fired on them but they escaped from the
place of incident firing at the police party. 36. Investigation further
brought out that, during the absconding period in Bihar, Pradip
Ganjhu (A-3) and Shahrukh (A-21) remained in contact with Aman
Sahu (A 2). Police was tracking them in district Bhagalpur so they
along with Santosh Kumar @ Banti Yadav (A-10), Prabhat Kumar @
Dimple Yadav (A-11), Pritam Kumar @ Chiku Yadav (A-12) and
Santosh Kumar Yadav (A-13) came to Jharkhand and were hiding in
Pindarkom Forest. Babulal Turi (A-8) and his brother Ajay Turi (A-
9) also joined them. On 7th February 2021, while they were plotting
an another terror incident in Colliery area, they were arrested by
Balumath Police with arms & ammunition, Mobile Phones, SIM
2025:JHHC:34888-DB
Cards and a Golden Turtle Ring purchased by Pradip Ganjhu (A-3)
from Bhagwati jewellers.
37. During custodial examination, accused Ajay Turi (A 9) brother of
accused Babulal Turi (A-8) disclosed that on the directions of Pradip
Ganjhu and Babulal Turi, he had written the seized pamphlets.
38. During investigation, the statements of protected witnesses 'A'
and 'B' were recorded. Both witnesses were present at Tetariyakhand
colliery at the time of firing by accused Pradip Ganjhu (A-3) with
other co-accused. Both witnessed the said incident. During photo
identification proceedings in presence of independent witnesses, both
have identified the photograph of accused Pradip Ganjhu (A-3) by
name and also identified him to be the resident of village-Pindarkom,
PS-Balumath, DistrictLatehar. They also identified the photographs of
Babulal Turi (A8), Santosh Ganjhu (A-4), Bihari Ganjhu (A-5),
Sakendra Ganjhu (A-6), Pramod Ganjhu (A-7) and accused Shahrukh
Ansari stating that these persons were among the group of 10 to 12
attackers who carried out firing and arson near Check Post No.01 at
Tetariyakhand colliery.
39. It has also come in the chargesheet that the appellant was actively
involved in the attack of Tetariyakhad colliery being a member of the
terrorist gang of Sujit Sinha (A-1) and Aman Sahu (A-2) and was
arrested by Balumath Police with arms, ammunitions, mobile phones,
sim cards and a Golden Turtle Ring purchased by Pradip Ganjhu
from Bhagwati jewelers. The said fact has been corroborated with the
documentary evidences marked as D-11, D-12, D-13, D-14, D-15, D-
19, D-57, D-58, D59, D-60, D-123, D-87, D-88, D-89, D-91, D-92, D-
93, D-94, D159 and D-38 along with the oral evidences marked as
PW-15, PW-16, PW-26, PW-55 and PW-56.
44. It is evident from the material available on record that in course
of investigation it has come that after the Tetariyakhad Colliery
incident the police searched the scene of crime and recovered 04
burnt trucks, one Yamaha Motorcycle, one blasted Cane Bomb with
wire, one white empty gallon, 07 empty fire cases out of which, 05
cases were marked as 7.65 KF and 02 empty cases were marked as
BMM KF and three hand written pamphlets having threatening
contents.
45. Accused Ajay Turi (A-9), brother of appellant Babulal Turi (A8),
along with Jasim Ansari (A-14) and his brother Wasim Ansari (A-15)
when remanded to police custody for custodial interrogation, he (A-8)
2025:JHHC:34888-DB
has disclosed his role in this criminal conspiracy and in presence of
the independent witnesses disclosed that on the direction of Pradip
Ganjhu (A-3) and his brother Babulal Turi (A-8), appellant herein, he
wrote threatening pamphlets which were dropped during terrorist
attack at Tetariyakhad on 18.12.2020. He further pointed out the
shops from where he along with Bihari Ganjhu (A- 5) purchased wire,
Battery of Motorcycle from Mccluskigunj district Ranchi and Petrol
with gallons from a place called Bhangiya and the same were used in
Tetarikhand incident for the arson purpose.
46. During investigation the role of the appellant has also come in
attacking the truck owners, D.O. holders, transporters and lifters to
spread fear in their minds, so that they could be extorted and to
execute the said plan, the appellant Babulal Turi (A-8) had
participated along with the other accused persons and accordingly,
they reached near Tetariyakhad Colliery and remained in the forest
and on the direction of appellant Babulal Turi (A-8), the Ajay Turi (A-
9) along with accused Bihari Ganjhu (A-5), went to Mccluskigunj in
the district of Ranchi and purchased electric wire and battery of
motorcycle. He also purchased petrol with gallons from a place called
Bhangiya, P.S. Balumath, district Latehar for using the same in the
Tetariyakhad Colliery attack.
47. It has further been surfaced that the appellant with the other
accused persons took dinner at the house of on one Laso Yadav and
while having the dinner, they were discussing a probable terrorist
attack at Tetariyakhad colliery.
48. It further transpires from the counter affidavit which is based upon
the material collection in the investigation as in the supplementary
chargesheet that the NIA has taken statement under Section 161
Cr.P.C. of the witnesses and the two protected witnesses had seen the
said incident at Tetariyakhad colliery and had identified the appellant
and other accused persons who had carried out firing and arson near
Check Post No.1 at Tetariyakhad Colliery.
49. It has also come in the chargesheet that the appellant was actively
involved in the attack of Tetariyakhad colliery being a member of the
terrorist gang of Sujit Sinha (A-1) and Aman Sahu (A-2) and was
arrested from the forest with other accused persons with arms and
ammunition while planning other terrorist attack. The said fact has
been corroborated with the documentary evidences marked as D-11,
D-12, D-13, D-14, D-15, D-19, D-57, D 58, D-59, D-60, D-123, D-87,
2025:JHHC:34888-DB
D-88, D-89, D-91, D-92, D 93,D- 94, D-159 and D-38 along with the
oral evidences marked as PW15, PW-16, PW-26, PW-55 and PW-56.
50. The further material has come that the appellant who is the active
member of the Sujit Sinha and Aman Sahu gang is still active in the
criminal activities of act of terror, raising funds for terrorist act,
conspiring, extortion, attempt to murder and firing using illegal arms
etc. and several cases have been registered against that gang.
51. This Court, after taking into consideration the aforesaid and
considering the fact which has come in course of investigation that the
appellant is the active member of the Sujit Sinha and Aman Sahu gang
and on the direction of Sujit Sinha and Aman Sahu the members of
this gang including Babulal Turi carried out firing incidents including
at Tetariakhand colliery on 18.12.2020 in which four civilians were
injured and four trucks and one motorcycle were burnt.
52. It appears from the discussion so made hereinabove that the
allegation against the appellant in course of investigation has come in
several paragraphs of the chargesheet, i.e., paragraph 17.5, 17.8,
17.9, 17.11, 17.20, 17.22, 17.26, 17.29, 17.33 etc.
53. The appellant has been identified by the protected witnesses and is
evident from paragraph 17.33 of the chargesheet wherein it has come
by making reference of the chemical examination of the ammunitions
seized from the possession of the accused persons which were
forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Ranchi for forensic
analysis. The partially report has been received which informed that
03 fired shell seized from the scene of crime were fired from country
made pistol seized from the possession of accused Pradip Ganjhu(A-
3). 01 fired shell of .315 inch/8 mm seized from the scene of crime was
fired from country made kata seized from the possession of appellant
Babulal Turi (A-8). 01 fired shell of .315 inch/8 mm seized from the
scene of crime was fired from country made kata seized from the
possession of Prabhat Kumar @ dimple Yadav (A-11).
54. The report has also come that the ammunitions seized from the
possession of accused persons was found to be effective.
55. It has further come at paragraph 17.29 of the chargesheet that the
protected witnesses who were present at Tetariyakhad colliery at the
time of firing by accused Pradip Ganjhu (A-3) with other co- accused
on 18.12.2020. Both witnessed the said incident. During photo
identification proceedings in presence of independent witnesses, both
identified the photograph of accused Pradeep Ganjhu by name and
2025:JHHC:34888-DB
also identified him to be the resident of Village-Pindarkom, PS-
Balumath, District Latehar. They also identified the photographs of
Babulal Turi (A-8), Santosh Ganjhu (A-4), Bihari Ganjhu (A-5),
Sakendra Ganjhu(A-6), Pramod Ganjhu (A-7) and accused Shahrukh
Ansari stating that these persons were among the group of 10 to 12
attackers who carried out firing and arson near Check Post No.01 at
Tetariyakhad colliery.----------
56. It further appears from paragraph 17.26 that the appellant and his
brother Ajay Turi (A-9) whose bail application has already been
rejected by this Court vide order dated 17.05.2023 passed in Criminal
Appeal(DB) No.133 of 2023, had joined the gang and on 07.02.2021,
while they were plotting another terror incident in colliery area, they
were arrested by Balumath Police with arms and ammunitions, mobile
phones, sim cards and a Golden Turtle Ring purchased by Pradip
Ganjhu from Bhagwati jewelers.-------
57. The NIA, during investigation recorded the confession of accused
Ajay Turi (A-9), Jasim Ansari (A-14) and his brother Wasim Ansari
(A-15). The said accused disclosed their role in this criminal
conspiracy. In presence of the independent witnesses, Ajay Turi (A-9)
disclosed that on the direction of Pradip Ganjhu (A-3) and his brother
Babulal Turi (A-8), he wrote threatening pamphlets which were
dropped during terrorist attack at Tetariyakhad on 18.12.2020.------
68. This Court, keeping the facts into consideration, regarding
applicability of the judgment depending upon the facts of the case, is
of the view that the fact of the given case is not of such extent where it
can be said that there is violation of Part-III of the Constitution of
India since the trial has already commenced, evidence is going on and
two witnesses have already been examined.
69. This Court is further of the view by taking into consideration the
specific attributability, as has been surfaced in court of investigation
regarding causing turbulence and the appellant having been identified
by the protected witnesses that he was apprehended at the spot itself,
the recovery of arms and ammunitions is there. From the scientific
examination the connectivity of the arms recovered has been
established in the FSL report.
70. This Court, taking into consideration the entirety of facts and
circumstances, as discussed hereinabove, coupled with the fact that
the prayer of the co-accused for grant of bail has already been
rejected, therefore, is of the view that it is not a case where this Court
2025:JHHC:34888-DB
has prima facie can come to a conclusion that the allegation levelled
is prima facie untrue.
71. This Court, after having discussed the factual aspect as above and
coming back to the order impugned wherefrom it is evident that the
learned trial court has considered the material available against the
appellant in the chargesheet as also by taking into consideration the
provision as contained under Section 43D(5) of the Act, 1967, has
come to the conclusion that the accusation against the appellant is
prima facie true and in that view of the matter, the learned trial court
has declined to extend the benefit of regular bail.
72. We are also in agreement with the aforesaid finding based upon
the material of accusation of the appellant and not prima facie
satisfied by taking into consideration the entire material on record
and, hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
73. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed."
50. Thus, from aforementioned paragraphs, it is evident that this
Court while dismissing the appeal has taken care of the culpability of
the present appellant and after due consideration of each and every
aspect of the case had denied to interfere with the order impugned.
74. 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 the submission advanced on behalf of the
respondent-NIA that the trial is going on expeditiously, this Court is of
the view that the order impugned dated 13.08.2024 passed in Misc.
Criminal Application No. 2081 of 2024 requires no interference.
75. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed of."
82. Further it would be apt to refer herein the relevant paragraph of the order
dated 13.10.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.781 of 2025 by
which the appeal of the another co-accused namely Ajay Turi son of
Govind Turi has also been rejected. The relevant paragraphs are being
quoted as under:
"50. Later on, the accused persons planned attack at Terariakhand
colliery and about 6.30 PM, and for that purpose accused Pankaj
Karmali @ Khetiya and Ajay Turi carried out recce at Tetariakhad.
2025:JHHC:34888-DB
At about 7.00 PM Pradip Ganjhu (A-3) along with other accused
persons carried out indiscriminate firing, in which 04 civilians were
injured. They also burned down 04 trucks, 01 motorcycle and they
blasted cane bomb beneath a Weigh Bridge and beneath a truck.
During the incident, they also dropped threatening pamphlets in the
name of Sujit Sinha (A-1) and Pradip Gunjhu (A-3).
51. Thus, from aforesaid evidences prima-facie the involvement of the
present appellant in the alleged commission of crime cannot be
denied. The involvement of the appellant was direct in the alleged
commission of crime which was fully substantiated by the statement of
the independent protected witnesses who were the witness of the 35
alleged crime.
71. It has been mentioned in the counter affidavit that from relevant
paragraph 1ST Supplementary chargesheet it is evident that mobile
phones and SIM cards of accused were recovered and seized at the
time of arrest from accused persons were forwarded to CERT IN, New
Delhi for forensic examination and analyzed. That, the threat and
demand pamphlets of Sujeet Sinha and Aman Sahu gang issued by
Pradeep Ganjhu (A-3) and recorded audio files extracted from the
mobile phones showing association of Saif Ali (A 20), Shahrukh
Ansari (A-21), the appellant/accused Ajay Turi (A-22), Pradeep
Ganjhu (A-3) and others with Aman Sahu (A-2) establishes the
existence of the (Sujeet Sinha and Aman Sahu gang) association of the
appellant/accused Ajay Turi (A-22) with the terror gang.
72. This Court, in view of the principle of parity as discussed
hereinabove and taking into consideration the material available
against the present appellant and also the culpability of the present
appellant in alleged commission of crime is of the view that the
principle of parity is not fit to be applied herein.
73. Hence, on the basis of discussion made hereinabove, we are of the
considered view that the material on record prima facie indicates the
complicity of the accused as a part of the conspiracy since he was
knowingly facilitating the commission of terrorist act under the
Sections of the UAP Act.
74. This Court taking into consideration the aforesaid facts is of the
view that in the circumstances as referred hereinabove and taking into
consideration the allegation leveled against the appellant the
impugned order needs no interference by this Court.
75. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.
2025:JHHC:34888-DB
83. The accusation of the present appellant as would be evident from
paragraph no. 17.14 of supplementary charge-sheet annexed with the
counter-affidavit is almost identical to the said co-accused who have fired
indiscriminately in the colliery, resulting in, four persons sustained
injuries and also four trucks have been burnt.
84. Thus, from aforesaid it is evident that since the prayer for bail of the co-
accused Ajay Turi and the Babulal Turi has already been rejected by this
Court, therefore the claim of parity will not be available to the present
appellant as the culpability of the present appellant is almost identical to
the said co-accused.
85. This Court, in view of the principle of parity as discussed hereinabove
and taking into consideration the material available against the present
appellant and also the culpability of the present appellant in alleged
commission of crime is of the view that the principle of parity is not fit to
be applied herein.
86. Hence, on the basis of discussion made hereinabove, we are of the
considered view that the material on record prima facie indicates the
complicity of the accused in the alleged commission of crime since he
was knowingly facilitating the commission of terrorist act under the
Sections of the UAP Act.
87. Hence, applying the statutory provision as contained under Section 43-
D(5) of the Act, 1967 along with its interpretation by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad
Shah Watali (Supra) and Gurwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and
Another (supra) and further taking into consideration the evidence
2025:JHHC:34888-DB
surfaced during the investigation against the appellant, is of the view that
the impugned order needs no interference by this Court.
88. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.
89. However, the National Investigating Agency are hereby directed to
expedite the trial and conclude the trial in shortest possible time.
90. It is made clear that the observation made by this Court in the instant
appeal is only for the purpose of consideration of issue of the instant
appeal and it will not prejudice the trial of the appellant before the learned
trial court.
91. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
21st November, 2025
KNR/A.F.R.
Uploaded on: 29.11.2025
