Jharkhand High Court
Hira Devi @ Anita Devi vs Union Of India Through National ... on 25 September, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Neutral Citation
2025:JHHC:29805-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 2172 of 2023
Hira Devi @ Anita Devi, D/o Chamru Gope, R/o Lapa
Bakspur, P.O. & P.S.- Karra, Dist.- Khunti, Jharkhand.
... Appellant
Versus
Union of India through National Investigating Agency, having
its office at N.I.A. Camp Office, Quarter No. 305, Sector-II,
P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Dhurwa, Dist.- Ranchi, Jharkhand-
834002. ... Respondent
----
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
----
For the Appellant : Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Adv.
For the Resp.-NIA : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Spl. P.P.-NIA
----
Dated : 25/09/2025
1. Heard Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Spl. P.P-NIA.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 15-12-2023
passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI-
cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application
No. 3041 of 2023 arising out of Special (NIA) Case No. 02/2018
corresponding to R.C. No. 02/2018/NIA/DLI whereby and
whereunder, the prayer for bail of the appellant has been
rejected.
3. The prosecution case arises out of a written report of
Bindeshwari Das, Officer-in-Charge of Bero P.S. to the effect that
a secret information was received on 10.11.2016 that the
supremo of PLFI for the purpose of depositing his ill-gotten
money of proceeds of crime realized as extortion had sent it
Neutral Citation
2025:JHHC:29805-DB
through his associates for depositing in the Bank account for
converting into white through a Safari vehicle bearing
registration no. JH01Y-2898 to SBI, Bero Branch. After making
a station diary entry and on the basis of the directives of the
superior authorities, the informant along with other Police
personnel went to SBI, Bero Branch for verification of the said
information. It is alleged that at about 3:15P.M. the informant
and his associates waited in ambush and in the meantime having
seen the Police party 3-4 persons attempted to flee away and
while one of the persons was apprehended from the campus of
the Bank three other persons were apprehended while boarding
on the Safari vehicle bearing registration no. JH01Y2898. On
query the apprehended accused persons disclosed their name as
Binod Kumar, Chandra Shekhar Kumar, Nand Kishore Mahto
and Mohan Kumar. A search was conducted in presence of
independent witnesses and one bag having 16 bundles of
currency note of Rs. 1,000/- total amounting to Rs. 16,00,000/-
was recovered from the possession of Binod Kumar and a mobile
phone was also recovered from him. It has been alleged that an
amount of Rs. 38,000/- was recovered from the possession of
co-accused Chandra Shekhar Kumar along with deposit slips of
various dates and one deposit slip of Rs. 16,00,000/- along with
two mobile phones. It has also been alleged that total currency
of Rs. 9,00,000/- was recovered from the possession of co-
accused Nand Kishore Mahto and two mobile phones were
recovered from Mohan Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar. None of the
apprehended accused persons could show any documents with
respect to the recovered currency notes and co-accused Binod
Kumar had confessed that PLFI Supremo Dinesh Gope had
instructed him over mobile to deposit the extorted amount of
Rs. 25,38,000/- in the name of the Petrol Pump of co-accused
Chandra Shekhar Kumar. All the articles were seized in presence
Neutral Citation
2025:JHHC:29805-DB
of independent witnesses and a seizure list was also prepared.
Based on the aforesaid allegations Bero P.S. Case
No. 67/2016 was instituted for the offences punishable u/s 212,
213, 414, 34 of the I.P.C., Section 13, 17, 40 of the UA(P) Act,
1967 and Section 17(ii) of the CLA Act. On completion of
investigation charge-sheet was submitted against Vinod Kumar
@ Binod Kumar, Chandra Shekhar Kumar, Nand Kishore Mahto
and Mohan Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar for the offences punishable
u/s 212, 213, 414and 34 of the I.P.C., Section 13, 17 and 40 of
the UA(P) Act, 1967 and Section 17(ii) of the CLA Act.
Consequent to the order of the Government of India,
Ministry of Home Affairs vide Order No. 11011/51/2017-IS, IV
dated 16.01.2018, the National Investigation Agency had taken
over the investigation of the case and consequently the First
Information Report was re-registered as RC-02/2018/NIA/DLI.
In course of investigation a supplementary charge-sheet was
submitted by the NIA against several accused persons including
the appellants.
4. It has been submitted by Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, learned
counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been implicated
primarily on account of the fact that she is the wife of the main
accused Dinesh Gope. On a close scrutiny of the two modules
and the independent transactions, it is clear that the appellant
does not hold the proceeds of crime and was not aware of any
criminal conspiracy hatched by the co-accused Sumant Kumar
(A-7). It has been submitted that several co-accused persons
have been granted bail by this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 514
of 2020, Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 201 of 2020, Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 14
of 2021, Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 520 of 2020, Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 68
of 2024 and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1778 of 2023. It has been
submitted that the appellant has remained in custody since
30-01-2020 and she does not have any criminal antecedent. The
Neutral Citation
2025:JHHC:29805-DB
trial has not yet concluded and considering the long
incarceration of the appellant, she deserves to be released on
bail.
5. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Spl. P.P.-NIA has submitted
that the criminal conspiracy hatched by the appellant and others
is evident from the fact that Shakuntala Kumari (A-13), the
second wife of Dinesh Gope was the sole proprietor of an
unregistered company, namely, Palak Enterprises, the present
appellant was the Joint Director along with Fuleshwar Gope of a
company named M/s Shiv Shakti Samridhi Infra Pvt. Ltd. which
were used for channelizing levy and extortion amount of Dinesh
Gope by depositing the same in the accounts of these companies.
In course of scrutiny of the account in Axis Bank, Ashok Nagar
Branch, Ranchi in the name of the appellant it came to light that
approximately Rs. 31 lakhs had been deposited/transferred from
the period June 2016 to January 2019. Similarly, in the account
standing in the name of the appellant in Central Bank of India,
an amount of Rs. 18,85,000/- had been deposited in cash for the
period 2012 to 2016. There have been other transactions as well
which has come in course of investigation. Mr. Das has
submitted that the prayer for bail of some of the co-accused has
been rejected including that of Shakuntala Kumari, the second
wife of Dinesh Gope in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 09 of 2024 and
Sumant Kumar in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 597 of 2024. The prayer
for bail of one of the co-accused Fuleshwar Gope had been
rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal
(Crl.) No. 7703/2024. It has, therefore, been submitted that a
prima facie case is made out against the appellant and, therefore,
the rigors of Section 43-D(5) of UA(P) Act will apply in the present
case. Moreover, the trial is on the verge of conclusion.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the respective sides and
have also perused the affidavits filed as well as the
Neutral Citation
2025:JHHC:29805-DB
supplementary charge sheet.
7. The appellant has been arrayed as (A-14) in the Second
Supplementary Charge Sheet and the role and activities of the
appellant in the entire episode has been depicted as under:
"17.17: Offences established
against accused Hira Devi @ Anita
Devi (A-14): A-14 is first wife of A-6
and is well acquainted with the facts
that A-6 is a terrorist and chief of PLFI
(People's Liberation Front of India) and
collects/raises levy through extortion.
A-14 has criminally conspired with the
members/associates of PLFI, an
Unlawful Association and terrorist
gang proscribed by the state of
Jharkhand, namely A-6, A-7, A-1, A-
10, A- 15, A-16 & A-17. On the direction
of A-6, A-14 had formed a Company
namely, M/S Shiv Shaktisamridhhi
Infra Pvt. Ltd (A-20), along with
partnership of A-18. Further, A-14 used
to directly or indirectly, raise or collect
funds, either from legitimate or
illegitimate sources or persons namely
A-1, A-6, A-7, A-10, A-15, A-16 & A-17
and other associates of A-6, knowing
fully well that such funds are likely to
be used by PLFI, a terrorist gang, for
their nefarious/terrorist activities. A-14
is deeply involved in the larger
conspiracy and in the commission of
instant crime and was channelizing the
Neutral Citation
2025:JHHC:29805-DB
extorted amount into legitimate means
by depositing the same in her
individual bank accounts and A-20. It
has been proved that A- 14 had
knowingly held the huge amount of
levy, collected through extortion by
PLFI, and the saic levy amount were
used for purchasing flat and her
personal use. A-14 has also knowingly
hidden her identity for the purpose of
fraud and impersonatior. and opened a
bank account in Central Bank of India
with a forged Aadhaar Card in the
name of Anita Devi for
raising/collecting levy amount and
channelizing the extorted money. A-14,
on the direction of A-6 and with
association of A-1, A-7, A-10, A-15 & A-
16, was deeply involved in the larger
conspiracy and in the commission of
the instant crime by channelizing the
extorted amount as per the plan
of PLFI. She knowingly held
the amount derived/collected through
extortion/levy by PLFI operatives from
commission of any terrorist act (levy,
extortion) or acquired through the
terrorist fund, and invested it into A-20
and her individual bank accounts, for
purchasing Flat and personal use. A-
14, on the directions of A-6 and with
the association of A-1, A-7, A- 10, A-13,
Neutral Citation
2025:JHHC:29805-DB
A-15, A-16 and A-17, was deeply ir
volved in the larger conspiracy and in
the commission of the instant crime
and was channelizing the extorted
amount as per the plan of PLFI.
Thereby, Hira Devi @ Anita Devi
(A-14) committed offences under
sections 120B, 468, 471 of the IPC,
sections 17, 18, 21 & 22(C) of the
UA(P) Act and sec 17(i), (ii) of the
CLA Act, 1908."
8. Apart from considering the allegations levelled against the
appellant, we have bestowed our consideration to the period of
incarceration of the appellant which is from 30.01.2020. In this
context, we may refer to the case of Union of India v. K.A.
Najeeb reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713 wherein, it has been held
as follows:
"16. As regards the judgment
in NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah
Watali [NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah
Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1 : (2019) 2 SCC
(Cri) 383] , cited by the learned ASG,
we find that it dealt with an entirely
different factual matrix. In that case,
the High Court [Zahoor Ahmad Shah
Watali v. NIA, 2018 SCC OnLine Del
11185] had reappreciated the entire
evidence on record to overturn the
Special Court's conclusion of their
being a prima facie case of conviction
and concomitant rejection of bail. The
High Court had practically conducted a
Neutral Citation
2025:JHHC:29805-DB
mini-trial and determined admissibility
of certain evidence, which exceeded
the limited scope of a bail petition. This
not only was beyond the statutory
mandate of a prima facie assessment
under Section 43-D(5), but it was
premature and possibly would have
prejudiced the trial itself. It was in
these circumstances that this Court
intervened and cancelled the bail.
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 provisions like Section
Neutral Citation
2025:JHHC:29805-DB
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
Neutral Citation
2025:JHHC:29805-DB
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 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."
9. This view was reiterated in the case of Ashim v. NIA reported
in (2022) 1 SCC 695 wherein, it has been held as follows:
"9. We have to balance the nature of
crime in reference to which the
appellant is facing a trial. At the same
time, the period of incarceration which
has been suffered and the likely period
within which the trial can be expected
to be completed, as is informed to this
Court that the statement of PW 1/de
facto complainant has still not been
completed and there are 298
prosecution witnesses in the calendar
of witness although the respondent
has stated in its counter-affidavit that
it may examine only 100 to 105
witnesses but indeed may take its own
time to conclude the trial. This fact
Neutral Citation
2025:JHHC:29805-DB
certainly cannot be ignored that the
appellant is in custody since 6-7-2012
and has completed nine-and-half years
of incarceration as an undertrial
prisoner.
10. This Court has consistently
observed in its numerous judgments
that the liberty guaranteed in Part III of
the Constitution would cover within its
protective ambit not only due procedure
and fairness but also access to justice
and a speedy trial is imperative and
the undertrials cannot indefinitely be
detained pending trial. Once it is
obvious that a timely trial would not be
possible and the accused has suffered
incarceration for a significant period of
time, the courts would ordinarily be
obligated to enlarge him on bail.
11. Deprivation of personal liberty
without ensuring speedy trial is not
consistent with Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. While deprivation
of personal liberty for some period may
not be avoidable, period of deprivation
pending trial/appeal cannot be unduly
long. At the same time, timely delivery
of justice is part of human rights and
denial of speedy justice is a threat to
public confidence in the administration
of justice."
10. Several co-accused persons have been granted bail by a
Neutral Citation
2025:JHHC:29805-DB
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and recently on 08-09-2025, one
of the co-accused, namely, Nandlal Swarnkar has been granted
bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal
(Crl.) No. 9738/2025 taking into consideration amongst other
grounds, the period of custody of the said accused.
11. The appellant has remained in custody for about 5 years 8
months. On consideration of the entire aspects of the case
including the period of custody undergone by the appellant, we
hereby set aside the order dated 15-12-2023 passed by the
learned A.J.C.-XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi in Misc.
Criminal Application No. 3041/2023 arising out of Special (NIA)
Case No. 02/2018 corresponding to R.C. No. 02/2018/NIA/DLI.
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. 02/2018/NIA/DLI arising out of Special NIA Case No.
02/2018, subject to the condition that the appellant shall remain
physically present before the learned trial court on each and
every date till the conclusion of the trial.
12. This appeal is allowed.
13. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)
(PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.)
Dated: 25th September, 2025
Preet/-
