Jharkhand High Court
(Against The Order Dated 26.03.2025 ... vs Union Of India Through National ... on 10 September, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Ambuj Nath
Neutral Citation
2025:JHHC:28139-DB
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 521 of 2025
(Against the order dated 26.03.2025 passed by Sri Madhuresh
Kumar Verma, learned AJC-XVI-cum-Spl. Judge, NIA, Ranchi in
Misc. Criminal Application No. 315/2025.)
Kohram @ Laxman Ganjhu @ Ibrahim Ji @ Lallan Ji @
Amar Singh Bhokta, S/o Jagan Ganjhu @ Jagan Singh
Bhokta, R/o Vill- Nawadih, P.O. & P.S.- Lawalong, Dist.-
Chatra, Jharkhand. ... Appellant
Versus
Union of India through National Investigation Agency,
represented by Superintendent of Police N.I.A. having its office
at N.I.A. Camp Office, Qtr. No. 305, Sector-II, P.O. & P.S.-
Dhurwa, Dist.- Ranchi, Jharkhand. ... Respondent
----
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
----
For the Appellant : Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Adv.
For the Resp.-NIA : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Spl. P.P.
----
Dated : 10/09/2025
CAV JUDGMENT
Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. :
1. Heard Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Special P.P.-NIA.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 26-03-25
passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 315/2025 in
connection with R.C. No. 23/2018/NIA/DLI arising out of
Special NIA Case No. 08/2018 by Sri Madhuresh Kumar Verma,
learned A.J.C.-XVI cum Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi whereby and
whereunder, the prayer for bail of the appellant has been
rejected.
3. It has been alleged by the informant that on 19.11.2017, he
had received an information that Pramjit Singh @ Soni who is a
Neutral Citation
2025:JHHC:28139-DB
member of MCC and presently joined TPC was demanding levy
from the contractors and giving threats for which, a station diary
entry was made and on verification the said fact was found to be
true. The Superintendent of Police was informed and as per his
direction a team was constituted. When the team reached Panki
market a confidential information was received that an active
member of TPC namely Shyam Bhokta @ D.C. was coming after
collecting levy from different traders and contractors and was to
handover the money to the members of extremists outfit. It has
been alleged that the said person on seeing the Police Party tried
to flee away but he was apprehended on chase and on a search
conducted a country made pistol and a cartridge was recovered
from his trouser and from his bag cash of Rs. 5,00,000/-, voter
ID, PAN Card and two mobiles were recovered. The apprehended
accused could not produce any document with respect to the
cash as well as arms and ammunitions. He had disclosed that he
was going to handover the money to senior leaders of the
organization. He had also disclosed that the money was collected
from traders of Kendu leaves, query owners, contractors and
businessmen.
4. Based on the aforesaid allegations Panki (Palamu) P.S. Case
No. 157/2017 was instituted for the offences under Sections 386,
120B of the I.P.C., Sections 17, 18 of the Criminal Law
Amendment Act, Sections 10, 11, 17, 18, 19 & 20 of the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Section 25(1-b)(a), 26, 35 of the
Arms Act.
On completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted
by the Police. However, pursuant to the order dated 06.07.2018
of the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs the
investigation of Panki (Palamu) P.S. Case No. 157/2017 was
handed over to the NIA pursuant to which the First Information
Report was re-registered as Special (NIA) Case No. 08 / 2018 (NIA
Neutral Citation
2025:JHHC:28139-DB
Case No. RC-23/2018/NIA/DLI). The first supplementary
charge-sheet was submitted against both the appellants u/s
386/411 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 25(1-b)(a), 26 of the
Arms Act, Sections 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and
Sections 17, 18, 19, 21 & 23 of the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act.
5. It has been submitted by Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, learned
counsel for the appellant that the appellant was apprehended
based on the confessional statement of co-accused Shyam
Bhokta, who has attributed the appellant along with the other
accused persons of extorting levy from businessmen/contractors
and using the amount for purchasing arms and ammunitions
thereby strengthening TPC. The arrest of Shyam Bhokta led to
recovery of a huge cache of arms and ammunitions stored in
Lambitand hills which was said to be belonging to the appellant
and some other accused persons and two of the co-accused
persons, namely, Prem Sagar Mahto and Uchit Mahto have been
granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court taking into
consideration the period of incarceration and the chance of
concluding the trial in the near future being bleak. Mr.
Srinivasan has submitted that the appellant is in custody since
14-05-2019 and has undergone the maximum sentence
prescribed in most of the offences.
6. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Special P.P.-NIA has
submitted that the appellant is the Regional Commander of TPC
who has a demarcated area of operation in which a fixed
percentage of levy has been imposed by the appellant on
government and private contracts. The appellant was in regular
contact with the other accused persons and was instrumental in
stocking up arms and ammunitions which were recovered from
Lumbitand hills on the confession of Shyam Bhokta (A-1). There
are a number of antecedents against the appellant which
Neutral Citation
2025:JHHC:28139-DB
furthermore signifies the active role played by him in being
involved in nefarious and subversive activities. The trial is
progressing as the witnesses are being examined and, therefore,
the prayer for bail of the appellant should be rejected more so,
when there are incriminating materials against the appellant. It
has been submitted that the prayer for bail of some of the co-
accused persons have been rejected by a Coordinate Bench of
this Court.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides
and have also perused the affidavits as well as the first
supplementary charge sheet brought on record.
8. The appellant has been arrayed as (A-6) in the First
Supplementary Charge Sheet and the role and activities
attributed to the appellant has been demarcated in the following
manner:
17.12.6 Role and activities of /offences
established against Amar Singh Bhokta
@Laxman Ganjhu @ Kohramji @ Ibrahim
(A-6): Therefore, as per the averments made
hereinabove and as per evidences collected
on record during investigation, it is
established that he was an armed cadre of
CPI (Maoist) and later on he joined TPC and
he is Regional Commander of TPC, active in
Barkagoan, Simariapurbi, Gidoh,
Pathalgada, Katkamsandhi and Charahi
Paschami, area of Jharkhand. He was also
earlier member of CPI (Maoist) and after that
joined TPC. He used to collect levy from
Crusher owner, contractors and other
businessmen by putting them in fear of
death/grievous hurt. He raised funds for
Neutral Citation
2025:JHHC:28139-DB
TPC through extortion for strengthening the
organization by expanding armed cadre and
procuring the Arms and ammunition. He was
also in regular touch with other co-accused
and criminally conspired amongst
themselves. As per evidence collected on
record he and other co-accused persons gave
the extorted money Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rupees
seven lakhs) to A-1. TPC operatives including
him had concealed the huge cache of arms
and ammunition at Lambtitaand hills.
Thereby he committed offences under
section 120B r/w 386, 411 of IPC, sections
25(1B)(a) and 26 of the Arms Act, section 17
of CLA Act and sections 17 and 21 of UA(P)
Act. He is also liable for substantive offences
under section 17, 18 and 20 of UA(P) Act and
section 17 of CLA Act.
9. What could be gathered from the aforesaid is primarily a
charge of criminal conspiracy which the appellant is said to have
indulged in concert with the other accused persons in order to
strengthen the terrorist organization. This includes expanding
the armed cadre and procurement of arms and ammunitions.
The appellant along with other accused persons had given an
amount of Rs. 7 lakhs which was an extorted money to Shyam
Bhokta (A-1).
10. In the First Supplementary Charge Sheet, Uchit Mahto and
Prem Sagar Mahato have been arrayed as (A-2) and (A-3)
respectively. Both these accused persons were arrested from
Lumbitand hills from where a huge cache of arms and
ammunitions were recovered. The allegations made against these
accused persons are graver than the present appellant.
Neutral Citation
2025:JHHC:28139-DB
Although, initially the prayer for bail of these accused were
rejected by this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 352 of 2019 in which
it was observed that if the trial is not concluded within a period
of one year, they are at liberty to renew their prayer for bail and
since the trial did not conclude within the time specified, both
the said accused had renewed their prayer for bail in Cr. Appeal
(DB) No. 305 of 2024 and vide order dated 25-06-2024, they were
granted bail. The considerations which were made were the
period of detention and the possibility of the trial being concluded
in the near future being bleak.
11. In the context of the above, we may refer to the case of
Union of India v. K. A. Najeeb reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713 in
which it has been held as follows:
"17. It is thus clear to us that the presence
of statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5)
of the UAPA per se does not oust the ability
of the constitutional courts to grant bail on
grounds of violation of Part III of the
Constitution. Indeed, both the restrictions
under a statute as well as the powers
exercisable under constitutional jurisdiction
can be well harmonised. Whereas at
commencement of proceedings, the courts
are expected to appreciate the legislative
policy against grant of bail but the rigours of
such provisions will melt down where there
is no likelihood of trial being completed
within a reasonable time and the period of
incarceration already undergone has
exceeded a substantial part of the
prescribed sentence. Such an approach
would safeguard against the possibility of
Neutral Citation
2025:JHHC:28139-DB
provisions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA
being used as the sole metric for denial of
bail or for wholesale breach of constitutional
right to speedy trial.
18. Adverting to the case at hand, we are
conscious of the fact that the charges
levelled against the respondent are grave
and a serious threat to societal harmony.
Had it been a case at the threshold, we
would have outrightly turned down the
respondent's prayer. However, keeping in
mind the length of the period spent by him in
custody and the unlikelihood of the trial
being completed anytime soon, the High
Court appears to have been left with no other
option except to grant bail. An attempt has
been made to strike a balance between the
appellant's right to lead evidence of its choice
and establish the charges beyond any doubt
and simultaneously the respondent's rights
guaranteed under Part III of our Constitution
have been well protected.
19. Yet another reason which persuades us
to enlarge the respondent on bail is that
Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA is comparatively
less stringent than Section 37 of the NDPS
Act. Unlike the NDPS Act where the
competent court needs to be satisfied that
prima facie the accused is not guilty and that
he is unlikely to commit another offence
while on bail; there is no such precondition
under UAPA. Instead, Section 43-D(5) of the
Neutral Citation
2025:JHHC:28139-DB
UAPA merely provides another possible
ground for the competent court to refuse bail,
in addition to the well-settled considerations
like gravity of the offence, possibility of
tampering with evidence, influencing the
witnesses or chance of the accused evading
the trial by absconsion, etc.
20. In light of the above discussion, we are
not inclined to interfere with the impugned
order. However, we feel that besides the
conditions to be imposed by the trial court
while releasing the respondent, it would
serve the best interest of justice and the
society at large to impose some additional
conditions that the respondent shall mark
his presence every week on Monday at 10
a.m. at the local police station and inform in
writing that he is not involved in any other
new crime. The respondent shall also refrain
from participating in any activity which
might enrage communal sentiments. In case
the respondent is found to have violated any
of his bail conditions or attempted to have
tampered the evidence, influence witnesses,
or hamper the trial in any other way, then
the Special Court shall be at liberty to cancel
his bail forthwith. The appeal is accordingly
dismissed subject to the abovestated
directions."
12. So far as the present appellant is concerned, he is
incarcerated in jail since 14-05-2019 and there is no possibility
of the trial being concluded in the near future. Apart from the
Neutral Citation
2025:JHHC:28139-DB
same and as noted by us, conspiracy seems to be the main
feature of the allegations made against the appellant. We are
aware of the fact that the prayer for bail of two of the co-accused
have already been rejected by a Coordinate Bench of this Court,
but regard being had to the entire facets of the case, so far as the
appellant is concerned, his period of detention and the possibility
of conclusion of trial in the near future being bleak, we are
inclined to grant bail to the appellant. In view of the above, the
impugned order dated 26-03-2025 passed in Misc. Criminal
Application No. 315/2025 in connection with R.C. No.
23/2018/NIA/DLI arising out of Special NIA Case No. 08/2018
by Sri Madhuresh Kumar Verma, Learned AJC-XVI cum Special
Judge, NIA, Ranchi is quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the
appellant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.J.C.-XVI-cum-
Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi in connection with R.C. No.
23/2018/NIA/DLI arising out of Special NIA Case No. 08/2018,
subject to the condition that one of the bailers should be a close
relative of the appellant and the appellant shall remain physically
present before the learned trial court on each and every date till
the conclusion of the trial.
13. This appeal is allowed.
14. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)
(AMBUJ NATH, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated the 10th Day of September, 2025
Preet/N.A.F.R.
