Jharkhand High Court
Ajay Turi vs Union Of India Through National ... on 13 October, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:31597-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.781 of 2025
-----
Ajay Turi, Son of Govind Turi, aged about 21 years, R/o
Village-Bundu, P.O. & P.S. - Keredari, District-Hazaribag.
... ... 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 : Md. Razaullah Ansari, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
: Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate
------
C.A.V. on 26.09.2025 Pronounced on 13/10/2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer
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 in Misc. Cr.
Application No.705 of 2025 by learned Additional Judicial
Commissioner-XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi
whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail in connection
with Special (NIA) No.01/2021 arising out of Balumath P.S.
Case no.234 of 2020 re-registered as RC Case
No.01/2021/NIA/RNC by NIA under Sections 147, 148,
149, 353, 504, 506, 307, 427, 435, 386, 387, 120B, 121A
and 216 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 25(1)(b), 26, 27
and 35 of the Arms Act, Sections 3 & 4 of the Explosive
2025:JHHC:31597-DB
Substance Act, Section 17 of CLA Act, 1908 and Sections 10,
13, 16(1)(b), 20 and 23 of UA(P) Act, has been rejected.
Facts
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the prosecution
version, which required to be enumerated read hereunder
as:-
The prosecution case is based on the information
received by Balumath Police Station that at about 19 hours
on 18.12.2020, some unknown persons were burning
vehicles by firing indiscriminately near check post no.1 at
Tetariakhand Colliery. The assailants fired on the police
party that had rushed to the spot. The assailants had burnt
four trucks, one motorcycle and injured four civilians. The
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. Upon further inquiry it was
revealed that gangster Sujit Sinha and Aman Sao had
conspired with accused Pradeep Ganjhu and his associates
namely Santosh Ganjhu, Bihari Ganjhu, Sakendra Ganjhu,
Pramod Ganjhu and others for extortion and disruption of
Government works.
Accordingly, Balumath PS Case No.234/2020 dated
19.12.2020 was registered u/s 147, 148, 149, 353, 504, 506,
2025:JHHC:31597-DB
307, 427, 435, 386, 387 and 120B of IPC section 27 of Arms
Act and Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act, against
Sujit Sinha, Pradeep Ganjhu, Aman Sahu, Sakendra
Ganjhu, Bihari Ganjhu, Pramod Ganjhu, Santosh Ganjhu
and some other unknown accused persons.
3. 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 6(5) read with section 8 of
the NIA Act 2008, directed the NIA to take up the
investigation of the aforesaid case.
4. On the direction of the Ministry of Home Affairs, NIA
re-registered Case No. 01/2021/NIA-RNC dated 04.03.2021
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 the Explosive Substance Act, Section 17 of CLA Act,
1908 and Section 10, 13, 16(1)(b), 20 and 23 of UA(P) Act.
5. From record it appears that the appellant has been
taken into custody on 08.02.2021, as such, prayer for bail
was made before the Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI-
cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi but the same has been
rejected vide order dated 13.06.2025 passed in Misc. Cr.
Application No.705 of 2025 against which the present appeal
has been filed.
2025:JHHC:31597-DB
Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant
6. The learned counsel for the appellant has assailed
the impugned order, by which the prayer for bail of the
appellant has been rejected, on the following grounds:
(i) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has
submitted that appellant is innocent and he has
committed no offence as alleged against him.
(ii) Learned counsel has further submitted that the
appellant has been falsely implicated in this case and
he is not named in the FIR.
(iii) The further ground has been taken that the police or
the NIA has not taken any step for TIP of the appellant
to establish his identity. He has been made accused in
this case only on the basis of suspicion.
(iv) 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.
(v) He has further submitted that similarly situated co-
accused persons namely Zahiruddin, Wasim, Jasim,
Santosh Kumar, Pritam Kumar @ Chiku Yadav and
others have been granted bail by the Hon'ble
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi.
(vi) Learned counsel has further submitted that the
appellant had earlier filed Criminal Appeal (D.B.) Nos.
2025:JHHC:31597-DB
609 of 2023 and 1462 of 2024 before the Hon'ble High
Court which were dismissed as withdrawn.
(vii) He has further submitted that the appellant is a poor
farmer and sole bread earner of his family and he is
ready to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by
this court if he is granted bail.
(viii) Learned counsel has further submitted that no offence
under section 147, 148, 149, 353, 504, 506, 307, 427,
435, 386, 387 of IPC, section 25(1)(b), 26, 27 and 35 of
Arms Act, section 3 & 4 of the Explosive Substance Act,
section 17 CLA Act and section 10, 13, 16(1)(b), 20 and
23 of UA(P) Act are made out against the appellant.
Therefore, he may be given privilege of bail.
(ix) It has been submitted that from perusal of charge-
sheet, it would be evident that save and except the
confessional statement of co-accused persons nothing
has come so as to connect the complicity of the
appellant in the alleged commission of crime or even
involvement in conspiracy said to attract the offence
under the Schedule offences.
(x) Ground has been taken about the period of custody, as
also there is no likelihood of trial to be concluded at an
early date and hence by taking into consideration the
said fact, submission has been made that the
impugned order may be interfered with. To buttress
this limb of argument the learned counsel for the
2025:JHHC:31597-DB
appellant put his reliance upon the judgment as
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Union of India Vs. K.A Nazeeb [(2021) 3 SCC 713].
7. The learned counsel for the appellant based upon the
aforesaid grounds has submitted that the learned court has
not taken the note of the aforesaid facts, therefore, the
present appeal is fit to be allowed.
Argument of the learned counsel for the opposite party
8. While on the other hand, Mr. Amit Kumar Das,
learned counsel appearing for the National Investigating
Agency (NIA) has defended the impugned order by taking
following grounds:
(i) Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that
it is incorrect on the part of the appellant to take the
ground that there is no evidence against him, rather,
ample materials have come against the appellant of
having in collaboration with the members of terrorist
gang, as would appear from the various paragraphs of
the supplementary chargesheet.
(ii) There is specific attributability against the appellant, as
would be evident from various paragraphs of the
Supplementary charge-sheet i.e., paragraph nos. 17.3,
17.6, 17.7, 17.14, 17.15, 17.22, 17.29 and 17.33.
(iii) The learned counsel further submitted that the
question which has been raised regarding the
2025:JHHC:31597-DB
applicability of the principle as laid down under Article
21 of the Constitution will not be applicable herein.
(iv) The judgment upon which reliance has been placed on
behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant, i.e., on
Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (supra) is not
applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present
case since the 22 witnesses out of the 228 witnesses
have already been examined and the offence as alleged
against the present appellant is very grave in nature in
compare to the respondent of the said case.
(v) It has been contended that in the case of "National
Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah
Watali" (2019) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
held that bail proceedings under the Special enactment
are distinct and the Courts are duty bound to refused
bail where the suspect is prima facie believed to be
guilty.
(vi) It has further been submitted that the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the judgment rendered in "Gurwinder Singh
v. State of Punjab and Another [(2024) SCC OnLine
SC 109] has held that "for the offences under UA(P) Act,
bail will be an exception and jail will be the rule".
(vii) 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,
2025:JHHC:31597-DB
has not committed any error. The evidence pointed out
by the NIA before the learned trial court for showing
complicity of the appellant are mentioned below:-
Sl. Evidence What it will prove
No.
1 Statement of witness Statement of witness Laso Yadav
PW-15 Laso Yadav recorded u/s 161 and 164 of Cr
recorded u/s 161 P.C. will prove that accused
and 164 of Cr P.C. Shahrukh Ansari alongwith
accused Pradeep Ganjhu and
other gang member were present
at village Pindarkom near to
Tetariakhand colliery on
17.2.2020 and on the day of
attack i.e. 18.12.2020 they were
planning for terrorist attack
2 Statements of Statement of witness Ganga
witness PW-16 Yadav recorded u/s 161 and 164
Ganga Yadav of Cr P.C will prove that accused
recorded u/s 161 Shahrukh Ansari alongwith
and 164 of Cr P.C. accused Pradeep Ganjhu and
other gang member were present
at village Pindarkom near to
Tetariakhand colliery on
18.12.2020 they were planning
for terrorist attack.
3 Statements of PW- Statement of witness Sampatti
17 Sampatti Yadav Yadav recorded u/s 161 and 164
recorded u/s 161 of Cr P.C will prove that accused
and 164 of Cr P.C Shahrukh Ansari alongwith
accused Pradeep Ganjhu and
other gang member was present
at village Pindarcom near to
Tetariakhand colliery on
18.12.2020 they were planning
for terrorist attack.
2025:JHHC:31597-DB
4 Disclosure and It will corroborate the
pointing out by A-22 involvement of accused Ajay Turi
Ajay Turi before NIA A-22 in Tetariakhand colliery
in presence of incident.
independent witness
D-195 to D-196
5 Confessional It will corroborate the
statement of involvement of Ajay Turi A-22 in
Pradeep Ganjhu, Tetariakhand colliery incident.
Babulal Turi Aman
Sahu and other
accused before
Balumath and
Latehar police. D-
17, D-18, D-19 and
D-15.
6 Disclosure and It will corroborate the
pointing out involvement of Ajay Turi A-22 in
statements of Tetariakhand colliery incident.
accused Pradeep
Ganjhu Babulal Turi
Aman Sahu and
other before NIA in
presence of
independent
witnesses D-57, D-
58, D-59, D-60, D-
61, D-62, D-63,
D123, D- 124
7 The photo During the proceeding witness
identification identified accused Ajay Turi A-22
proceeding by being part of the terrorist gang
protected witness D involved in the terrorist attack at
and protected Tetariakhand colliery on
witness E (D-253 18.12.2020.
and D-254)
8 The recovery of SFSL report will prove that
blasted cane bomb material exhibits recovered from
2025:JHHC:31597-DB
07 nos of empty scene of crime used of his
cartridges, empty involvement in the incident at
plastic container Tetariakhand colliery.
and handwritten
pamphlets seized
from the scene of
crime D-165
9 The case record of It will prove the arrest of accused
P.S. Barkagaon case Ajay Turi being associated with
no 44/2021 dated Aman Sahu gang in the
09.02.2021 D-262 Barkagaon case. It will also prove
his association with other gang
members.
09. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the respondent-NIA
based upon the aforesaid ground has submitted that since
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.
Analysis
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties,
perused the documents available on record and the finding
recorded by learned trial Court as recorded in the impugned
order as also contents of counter affidavit wherein copy of
the supplementary charge-sheet has also been appended.
11. It would be evident from the prosecution version that
on 18.12.2020 a case being Balumath P.S. Case No.
234/2020 was instituted on information received at the
2025:JHHC:31597-DB
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 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.
12. 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.
13. The Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India,
in exercise of power conferred under Section 6(5) read with
2025:JHHC:31597-DB
section 8 of the NIA Act 2008, 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. Chargesheet was consequently
submitted against the appellant and other accused persons.
14. The argument which has been advanced on behalf of
the appellant that there is no specific attributability of the
appellant in commission of offence said to be committed
under the Schedule offence and the appellant has been
implicated in the present case only on the basis of suspicion.
15. Further submission has been made that save and
except the confessional statement of co-accused persons
nothing has been come so as to connect the complicity of the
appellant in the alleged commission of crime or even
involvement in conspiracy said to attract the offence under
the Schedule offences. Ground has also been taken since
there is no likelihood of trial to be concluded at an early date
and hence by taking into consideration the said fact the
appellant may be released on bail.
16. While on the other hand, Mr. Amit Kumar Das,
learned counsel appearing for the National Investigating
Agency (NIA) has submitted that there is specific
attributability against the appellant, as would be evident
from various paragraphs of the charge-sheet. Further the
bail applications of the co-accused persons, have also been
rejected by this Court.
2025:JHHC:31597-DB
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. Clause (m) of Section 2 of the 1967 Act defines
"terrorist organization". It is defined as an organization listed
in the First Schedule. CPI (Maoist) has been listed at Item
2025:JHHC:31597-DB
no. 34 in the First Schedule. Chapters III onwards of the
1967 Act incorporate various offences. Chapter IV has the
title "punishment for terrorist act". Clause (k) of Section 2
provides that "terrorist act" has the meaning assigned to it
under Section 15 and the terrorist act includes an act which
constitutes an offence within the scope of, and as defined in
any of the treaties specified in the Second Schedule.
21. Further section 10(a)(i) of Act 1967 provides that
where an association is declared unlawful by a notification
issued under Section 3 which has become effective under
sub-section (3) of that Section, a person, who is continues to
be a member of such association shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, and
shall also be liable to fine therefore, so long as Section 10(a)(i)
stands a person who is or continues to be a member of such
association shall be liable to be punished.
22. 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.
2025:JHHC:31597-DB
(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.
23. 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.
24. 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 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
2025:JHHC:31597-DB
grounds for believing that the accusation against such
person is prima facie true."
25. 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 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
2025:JHHC:31597-DB
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 11 grounds for believing that the accusation
against such person is "prima facie" true. By its very nature,
the expression "prima facie true" would mean that the
materials/evidence collated by the investigating agency in
reference to the accusation against the accused concerned
in the first information report, must prevail until
contradicted and overcome or disproved by other evidence,
and on the face of it, shows the complicity of such accused
in the commission of the stated offence. It must be good and
sufficient on its face to establish a given fact or the chain of
facts constituting the stated offence, unless rebutted or
contradicted. In one sense, the degree of satisfaction is
lighter when the Court has to opine that the accusation is
"prima facie true", as compared to the opinion of the
accused "not guilty" of such offence as required under the
other special enactments. In any case, the degree of
satisfaction to be recorded by the Court for opining that
there are reasonable grounds for believing that the
accusation against the accused is prima facie true, is lighter
than the degree of satisfaction to be recorded for
considering a discharge application or framing of charges in
relation to offences under the 1967 Act...."
26. It is, thus, evident from the proposition laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Investigation
Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (Supra) that 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,
2025:JHHC:31597-DB
whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused
or not.
27. 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.
28. 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.
2025:JHHC:31597-DB
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 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
2025:JHHC:31597-DB
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."
29. 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 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.
30. 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
2025:JHHC:31597-DB
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.
31. 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.
32. 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.
2025:JHHC:31597-DB
33. 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).
34. For ready reference following paragraphs of the
aforesaid Judgment are being quoted herein under:
"27. A bare reading of Sub-section (5) of Section 43D
shows that apart from the fact that Sub-section (5)
bars a Special Court from releasing an accused on
bail without affording the Public Prosecutor an
opportunity of being heard on the application
seeking release of an accused on bail, the proviso to
Sub-section (5) of Section 43D puts a complete
embargo on the powers of the Special Court to
release an accused on bail. It lays down that if the
Court, 'on perusal of the case diary or the report made
under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure',
is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds
for believing that the accusation, against such
person, as regards commission of offence or offences
under Chapter IV and/or Chapter VI of the UAP Act
is prima facie true, such accused person shall not
be released on bail or on his own bond. It is
interesting to note that there is no analogous
provision traceable in any other statute to the one
found in Section 43D(5) of the UAP Act. In that
2025:JHHC:31597-DB
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--"
35. 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
2025:JHHC:31597-DB
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.
36. 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 report submitted under
Section 173 CrPC;
2) Whether the accused deserves to be enlarged on bail
in light of the general principles relating to grant of bail
under Section 439 CrPC ('tripod test')?"
37. 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
2025:JHHC:31597-DB
into consideration the material collected in course of
investigation.
38. From perusal of record, it is evident that the extract
of the charge-sheet dated 26.02.2022 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), 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.
39. It has further been revealed as has been referred
under paragraph 17.7 of chargesheet that accused Sujit
2025:JHHC:31597-DB
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),
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.
40. 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
2025:JHHC:31597-DB
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.
41. 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), 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.
2025:JHHC:31597-DB
42. 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),
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).
43. 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) 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:31597-DB
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).
44. 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.
2025:JHHC:31597-DB
45. 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 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.
46. Paragraph 17.3, 17.7, 17.11, 17.14, 17.15, 17.22,
17.29 and 17.33 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
2025:JHHC:31597-DB
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 (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
2025:JHHC:31597-DB
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 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
2025:JHHC:31597-DB
(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) 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."
2025:JHHC:31597-DB
47. It is thus evident from the imputation against the
appellant, as referred in the paragraphs as quoted herein
above, that it has come in the course of investigation that
accused/appellant was associated with the PLFI, a banned
association under the Criminal Law Amendment Act. 1908.
Later, he was 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.
48. It has further come that Aman Sahu directed them to
carry out terror incidents for the purpose of extortion in the
name of "Sujit Sinha and Aman Sahu gang". 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.
49. After the said incident of seizure of AK-47 Rifle etc
and arrest of two Gang members by Balumath Police, Sujit
2025:JHHC:31597-DB
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 direction of Pradip Ganjhu (A-3) and
Babulal Turi (A-8), Ajay Turi (A-9) wrote threatening
pamphlets.
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. 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
alleged crime.
2025:JHHC:31597-DB
52. 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.
53. In the aforesaid context it requires to revisit the
Statutory provision especially Section 43D (5) of Act 1967,
which requires consideration before looking to the legality
and propriety of the order refusing to grant of regular bail.
54. 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.
55. 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.
56. 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
2025:JHHC:31597-DB
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.
57. Further, since the learned counsel for the appellant
has relied upon the judgment of K.A.Najeeb (supra) so as to
interfere with the impugned order, therefore, this Court
deems it fit and proper to going through the judgment as
referred by learned counsel for the appellant.
58. The Appellant's counsel has relied upon the case
of K.A.Najeeb (supra) to back its contention that the
appellant has been in jail in the instant case since
07.02.2021 which is contrary to law laid down in the
aforesaid case. While this argument may appear compelling
at first glance, it lacks depth and substance.
59. In K.A.Najeeb (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 order granting
bail.
2025:JHHC:31597-DB
60. 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, therefore the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the view of unlikelihood of completion of trial in near
future not interfered in the order granting bail.
61. However, the instant case is different on fact and
circumstances since the imputation which has come against
the appellant as per the supplementary chargesheet is very
grave and serious in nature.
62. Further, herein in the instant case, as per the
submission of the learned counsel for NIA charges have been
framed against the appellant/accused and presently, the
prosecution has been examined 22 (Twenty-Two witnesses)
out of 228 witnesses and is fully committed to a timely
conclusion of the trial.
63. It has further been averred in the counter affidavit
that since the appellant having criminal antecedent,
therefore at this stage, if appellant/accused is allowed to be
released bail, then he will get all opportunities the on to
tamper with the evidence as well as influence the witnesses.
64. Further, it is settled proposition of law that the
applicability of the judgment depends upon the facts and
circumstances of each and every case and there cannot be
2025:JHHC:31597-DB
any universal application of the judgment rather each
judgment is to be decided on the basis of fact of each case.
Reference in this regard may be taken from the judgment as
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Subramanian
Swamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors reported in (2014) 5
SCC 75 for ready reference the relevant paragraph is being
quoted herein under:-
"47. It is a settled legal proposition that the ratio of any
decision must be understood in the background of the
facts of that case and the case is only an authority for
what it actually decides, and not what logically follows
from it. "The court should not place reliance on
decisions without discussing as to how the factual
situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on
which reliance is placed."
65. 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 of other cogent evidence which prima facie
indicates the involvement of accused/appellant with the
proscribed organization cannot be ignored.
66. 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.
67. So far, the probable delay in trial is concerned it is
relevant to state that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
2025:JHHC:31597-DB
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."
68. 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) is of the view that the argument which
has been placed that the allegation which is leveled against
the appellant cannot be said to be prima facie true is having
no substance.
69. 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
2025:JHHC:31597-DB
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."
70. 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:
"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.
2025:JHHC:31597-DB
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
been granted bail. The High Court has evidently
2025:JHHC:31597-DB
misunderstood the central aspect of what is meant by
parity. Parity while granting bail must focus upon the role
of the accused. Merely observing that another accused who
was granted bail was armed with a similar weapon is not
sufficient to determine whether a case for the grant of bail
on the basis of parity has been established. In deciding the
aspect of parity, the role attached to the accused, their
position in relation to the incident and to the victims is of
utmost importance. The High Court has proceeded on the
basis of parity on a simplistic assessment as noted above,
which again cannot pass muster under the law."
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
2025:JHHC:31597-DB
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.
76. It is made clear that the observation made by this
Court in the instant appeal is for the purpose of
consideration of grant of bail of the present appellant and it
will not prejudice the trial of the appellant before the learned
trial court.
I agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Dated : 13th October, 2025
Birendra/A.F.R.
Uploaded on 14.10.2025
