Jharkhand High Court
Prabhu Prasad Sahu @ Prabhu Pd. Sahu @ ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 September, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2025:JHHC:27985
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.2192 of 2024
-----
Prabhu Prasad Sahu @ Prabhu Pd. Sahu @ Prabhu Sao @ Prabhu Sahu, S/o Brij
Mali Sahu, R/o Banari, P.O. Banari, P.S. Bishunpur, District Gumla (Jharkhand)
------ Petitioner(s)
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.National Investigation Agency having its office at N.I.A. Camp Office, Quarter
No.305, Sector-II, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand
------ Opp. Party (s)
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Rishav Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
.........
17/ 12.09.2025: Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for modification of bail
order dated 27.02.2018 passed in B.A. No.963 of 2018.
2. This bail application was filed by the petitioner as he was taken in
custody, in connection with Garu P.S. Case No.32 of 2017, corresponding
to G.R. No.604 of 2017, which was pending before the learned S.D.J.M.,
Latehar.
3. The offences which was alleged committed by the petitioner was
punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 17 of
the CLA Act, Sections 25(1-A), 26(2)/35 of the Arms Act and Sections
16/20/23 of the UPA Act.
4. Considering the custody of the petitioner, the petitioner was
granted bail on 27.02.2018.
5. The petitioner did not file the bail bonds on the ground that he was
in custody in some other case being F.I.R. being RC-14/2017/NIA/DLI,
corresponding to Special (NIA) Case No.02 of 2017. Thereafter, the
petitioner has been granted bail in the aforesaid case in Cr. Appeal (DB)
No.380 of 2024. During the intervening period, the NIA took over
the investigation and Section 121A, 123A, 386, 411 and 120B of IPC, and
further, Sections 17, 18, 19, 23, 39 and 40 of UAPA were also added. All
these offences are triable by Special NIA Court.
6. Petitioner submits that when the petitioner was already granted
bail, he may be allowed to furnish the bail bonds and the order be kindly
be modified to the effect that this order of bail be made applicable in the
NIA case being RC 03/2021/NIA/2021 also.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the NIA opposes the
prayer and submits that since some more Sections have been added and
all the offences are triable by the NIA Court, the petitioner has to move
before the NIA Court and if the bail is rejected, then appeal will be heard
by the Division Bench, hence this modification should not be allowed.
8. After hearing the parties, I find that petitioner was earlier granted
bail. Initially, the case was not handed over to NIA. The F.I.R. was
initially registered under Sections 120B of IPC, Section 17 CLA Act,
Sections 25(1-A), 26(2) and 35 of the Arms Act and Sections 16, 20 and 23
of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
9. Before the petitioner could be released, the matter was taken by the
NIA and now cognizance has been taken in Special NIA Case No.3 of
2021, under Section 121A, 123A, 386, 411 and 120B of IPC, Sections 25(1-
A), 26(2) of the Arms Act and Sections 17, 18, 19, 23, 39 and 40 of the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act by the NIA Court.
10. The modification as sought by the petitioner amounts to extending
bail of the petitioner for these offences also, which will be applicable to
schedule offence under NIA Act.
Be it noted that the petitioner has already been remanded in this case.
11. Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 provides
provision of appeal. It is a statutory provision. Section 21 of the National
Investigation Agency Act is quoted hereunder:-
21. Appeals.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, an appeal
shall lie from any judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order,
of a Special Court to the High Court both on facts and on law.
(2) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be heard by a bench of two
Judges of the High Court and shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within
a period of three months from the date of admission of the appeal.
(3) Except as aforesaid, no appeal or revision shall lie to any court from any
judgment, sentence or order including an interlocutory order of a Special
Court.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3) of section 378 of
the Code, an appeal shall lie to the High Court against an order of the Special
Court granting or refusing bail.
(5) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty
days from the date of the judgment, sentence or order appealed from:
Provided that the High Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the
said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient
cause for not preferring the appeal within the period of thirty days: Provided
further that no appeal shall be entertained after the expiry of period of ninety
days.
12. Section 21(4) provides for filing an appeal against that order of
Special Court granting or refusing bail.
13. Further Section 21(2) mandates that every appeal should be heard
by a Bench of two Judges of the High Court.
14. In this case, the petitioner in grab of modification wants to extend
the order of bail granted earlier, to NIA's case also. The single Bench of
this Court cannot pass any order which amounts to extending bail in
NIA's cases. If the single Bench passes any order, then it would be a
jurisdictional error and will be in conflict with Section 21(2) of the
National Investigation Agency Act, as a single Bench lacks jurisdiction to
hear any appeal.
15. Further, in view of paragraph 30 of the judgment of Pradeep Ram
vs. State of Jharkhand and another, reported in (2019) 17 SCC 326, if new
Sections are added, the accused needs to file a bail application. Para 30
quoted hereunder:-
"30. Coming back to the present case, the appellant was already into jail custody with
regard to another case and the investigating agency applied before the Special Judge,
NIA Court to grant production warrant to produce the accused before the Court. The
Special Judge having accepted the prayer of grant of production warrant, the accused
was produced before the Court on 26-6-2018 and remanded to custody. Thus, in the
present case, production of the accused was with the permission of the Court. Thus, the
present is not a case where investigating agency itself has taken into custody the
appellant after addition of new offences rather the accused was produced in the Court
in pursuance of production warrant obtained from the Court by the investigating
agency. We, thus do not find any error in the procedure which was adopted by the
Special Judge, NIA Court with regard to production of the appellant before the Court.
In the facts of the present case, it was not necessary for the Special Judge to pass an
order cancelling the bail dated 10-3-2016 [Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand, 2016
SCC OnLine Jhar 3254] granted to the appellant before permitting the appellant-
accused to be produced before it or remanding him to the judicial custody."
16. Considering the aforesaid facts and law, this application stands
dismissed.
17. Petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh bail application before the
Special Judge.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
R.S./
